Mr Sandeep Gupta vs Acreage Properties Private Limited
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1559 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority's rejection of an application for recall of an ex-parte order as time-barred cannot stand where the delay is attributable to a bona fide mistake in identifying the order to be recalled, and the applicant had thereafter moved the correct application within the time and under the direction of the Authority; such a rejection is hyper-technical and the applicant is entitled to be heard on merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Sundeep Gupta ...Appellant
Versus
Acreage Properties Private Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Dhruv Pande & Mr. Karan Kohli, Advocates For Respondent : Appearance not marked
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
25.08.2026 Heard Shri Abhishek Anand, Learned Counsel for the
Appellant, and perused the records.
2. We notice that the Respondents have already been served by the Appellant
through e-mail. Otherwise also the nature of the order we intend to pass is such
whereby the rights of the Respondents would not be adversely affected. Thus, the
issuance of any further notices to the Respondent is hereby dispensed with.
3. The instant appeal has been filed by the Appellant, who was arrayed as
Respondent No. 12 in I.A. No. 4775 of 2020, moved under Section 47 of the Code,
whereby the I.A. No. 2813 of 2026, moved by the Appellant, has been dismissed on
the ground that the same has been preferred with considerable delay.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention towards the
order passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority on 07.11.2024, in I.A. No.
4775 of 2020, whereby an opportunity to file the reply was provided to Respondent
Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and for other Respondents the proceedings were set ex-parte,
including the Appellant, who was arrayed as Respondent No. 11.
1|Page
5. It is indicated by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant
herein was arrayed as Respondent No. 11 before the Learned Adjudicating
Authority and the perusal of order dated 07.11.2024 would reveal that Respondent
Nos. 11 to 13 to that proceedings were represented before the Learned Adjudicating
Authority on that day through their Advocate, Shri Dhruv Pande and even in the
presence of the Counsel for Respondent No. 11, the proceedings were directed to
proceed ex-parte.
6. It is further submitted that, on 03.01.2025, when I.A. No. 4775 of 2020 was
next listed, it was again observed by Learned Adjudicating Authority that the
proceedings against the other Respondents, except Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, had
already been set as ex-parte.
7. It is further submitted that to recall the order dated 03.01.2025 and I.A. No.
1651 of 2025 was filed by the Appellant and the same was listed on 15.04.2025
whereon after hearing the parties the order dated on 03.01.2025, was set aside by
the Learned Adjudicating Authority and the reply which was enclosed with the
application was taken on record and so much so the Applicant of that application
(I.A. No. 4775 of 2020) was also given opportunity to file the rejoinder vis-à-vis the
reply filed by the Appellant.
8. It is further submitted that, vide order dated 19.02.2026, the Counsel for the
Applicant in I.A. No. 4775 of 2020 was further given two weeks' time to file the
rejoinder. It is however, on the same day the I.A. No. 1651 of 2025, pertaining to
which an order was already passed on 15.05.2025, setting aside the order dated
03.01.2025, has been reopened and the same was disposed of in terms of I.A. No.
3948 of 2025 (The I.A. No. 3948 of 2025 was dismissed as withdrawn with the
liberty given to move appropriate application to recall the order dated 07.11.2024).
Thus, Appellant was also given opportunity to move appropriate application to
recall order dated 07.11.2024.
2|Page
9. It is further submitted that I.A. No. 2813 of 2026 was moved by the
Appellant, in pursuance of the liberty given by the Learned Adjudicating Authority
for recall of the order dated 07.11.2024, however, by passing the impugned order
the same has been dismissed only on the ground that the application has been
moved with considerable delay.
10. It is vehemently submitted that there was no delay on the part of the
Appellant in moving the application, as under some inadvertent mistake he has
earlier moved an application I.A. No. 1651 of 2025 to recall the order dated
03.01.2025 instead of order dated 07.11.2024 and by passing an order dated
15.05.2025 the order dated 03.01.2025 was set aside/recalled and the reply filed
by the Appellant along with that application was also taken on record. The
subsequent I.A. No. 2813 of 2026 was moved under the direction of the Learned
Adjudicating Authority passed on 19.02.2026, thus the impugned order may kindly
be set aside and the reply already filed by the Appellant before the Learned
Adjudicating Authority may be directed to be taken on record, with a consequential
direction of permitting participation of the Appellant in the proceeding pending
before the Learned Adjudicating Authority.
11. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the
record.
12. It is evident that the Appellant was set ex-parte on 07.11.2024 and the said
order was continued on 03.01.2025. However, under some misconception an
application I.A. No. 1651 of 2025 was moved by the Appellant to recall/set aside of
the order dated 03.01.2025, instead of the order dated 07.11.2024. The Learned
Adjudicating Authority also on 15.05.2025 under some misconception appears to
have taken on record the reply filed by the Appellant along with the application and
set aside the order dated 03.01.2025 and the opportunity was also provided to the
Applicant of I.A. No. 4775 of 2020 to file rejoinder.
3|Page
13. Subsequently, it was noticed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority that the
order dated 15.05.2025 has been passed with regard to the order dated 03.01.2025
and not in lieu of order dated 07.11.2024 and it is in this regard the I.A. No. 1651
of 2025 was disposed of on 19.02.2026 in terms of I.A. No. 3948 of 2025 which was
dismissed as withdrawn and liberty was given to the Applicant to move an
appropriate application to recall the order dated 07.11.2024. Thus, opportunity
was also provided to Appellant to move appropriate application for recall of order
dated 07.11.2024, and in pursuance of this order, the I.A. No. 2813 of 2026 was
moved by the Appellant which has been dismissed by passing impugned order.
14. Thus, the above sequence of events would reveal that there was no
considerable delay so far as moving of the application i.e., I.A. No. 2813 of 2026 by
the Appellant is concerned for the recall of the order dated 07.11.2024. However,
the only mistake appears to have been committed by the Appellant is to have
moved the application for recall/set aside of the order dated 03.01.2025, while the
same should have been moved for recall of the order dated 07.11.2024. Having
regard to the above fact and circumstances, we are of the considered view that an
hyper-technical view has been taken by the Learned Adjudicating Authority while
passing the impugned order as the I.A. No. 2813 of 2026 was in fact moved by the
Appellant under the directions of the Learned Adjudicating Authority passed on
19.02.2026 and the order dated 03.01.2025 was already set aside by the Learned
Adjudicating Authority. In our considered view the Appellant may be provided
opportunity to contest the case before the Learned Adjudicating Authority.
15. During the course of deliberation an order dated 13.07.2026, passed by the
Learned Adjudicating Authority has been placed before us, in order to show that
the next date of listing in I.A. No. 4775 of 2020 is 27.08.2026 and that the said I.A.
is still not disposed of. The said order is taken on record.
4|Page
16. Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal filed by the
Appellant is allowed the impugned order passed by the Learned Adjudicating
Authority is hereby set aside and order dated 07.11.2024 is recalled only to the
extent of Respondent No. 11/Appellant. The reply filed by the Appellant/
Respondent No. 11, which is already on the record before the Learned Adjudicating
Authority is directed to be taken on record and the Appellant is permitted to
participate in the proceeding before Learned Adjudicating Authority.
17. There is no order as to costs. The appeal is finally disposed of in above
terms.
[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)
[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) KS/MR
5|Page
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free