Mr.Shakirali Haiderali Khan vs Respondents
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 86 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order under appeal dismissed an application by a personal guarantor seeking a change in the date of default, reasoning that only the petitioner could make such a prayer and imposing costs. The Appellate Tribunal's reasoning is that the Adjudicating Authority proceeded under a misapprehension that the application had to be filed by the personal guarantor, when the application had in fact been filed by the personal guarantor who had himself initiated the Section 94 proceedings; on that basis the impugned order was set aside and the application restored for fresh consideration.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Shakirali Haiderali Khan ...Appellants (Personal Guarantor to S.H. Metal Works Pvt. Ltd.) Versus --- ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Smit Shah, Advocate. For Respondents : None.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
10.02.2026: Heard counsel for the appellant.
This appeal has been filed against the order 10.12.2025 by which IA
No. 5288 of 2025 filed by the appellant, the personal guarantor has been
dismissed. The order passed on 10.12.2025 is as follows:-
"ORDER IA 5288/2025 The present application has been filed by the personal guarantor seeking a change in the date of default. This Bench fails to understand how the respondent-personal guarantor can make such a request. If any such prayer is to be made, it must be made by the petitioner himself. The parties shall show a clear understanding between the parties. The application is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 /-, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.
IA 5288/2025 & C.P. (IB)/831(MB)2025 dismissed."
The counsel for the appellant submits that the application for change in
date of default was filed by the personal guarantor himself who had filed
Section 94 application. Adjudicating Authority under some confusion
observed that application has to be filed by the personal guarantor, the
application was dismissed with cost. We are of the view that order dated
10.12.2025 need to be set aside and the IA No. 5288 of 2025 revived before
the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration. With the above
observation, appeal is disposed of.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD
2 of 2 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 86 of 2026
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