Navnirman Ssr Pathways Private Limited vs Dev Yash Projects And Infrastructure ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1331 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal set aside a dismissal for non-prosecution where the petitioner's required deposit of costs had been made, though late, and the receipt had been shown to the Adjudicating Authority but was not reflected on the DMS Portal; the Tribunal exercised its discretion to take a lenient view and restored the petition on condition that the petitioner appear on every date and seek no adjournment.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1331 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Navnirman SSR Pathways Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Versus Dev Yash Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent(s)
Present: For Appellant : Ms. Honey Satpal, Mr. Akash Agarwalla, Mr. Aman, Ms. Tanya Gupta, Advocates.
For Respondents :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
28.07.2026 This Appeal is filed against an impugned order dated
07/07/2026 passed in CP (I.B.) No. 436/ND/2025. It is submitted by the Ld.
Counsel for Appellant petition under Section 9 of the IBC was filed and prior
to the Notice being issued, the matter was dismissed for non-Prosecution on
07/07/2026. It is submitted by order dated 13/05/2026 the Appellant was
required to deposit the cost within seven days from that day and there was a
slight delay in depositing such cost, but despite the fact they have shown the
receipt of deposit to the Ld. NCLT, since the receipt of deposit was not being
reflected on the DMS Portal, the petition was dismissed for non-Prosecution.
2. We have heard the arguments. No notice is required to be served upon
the Respondent in this case since petition under Section 9 has not been
admitted as yet.
3. Considering the fact the cost has since been deposited, though slightly
with delay, we take a lenient view in the matter and set aside the impugned order dated 07/07/2026 with a direction to the Appellant to be present on
each and every date before the Ld. NCLT and not to take any adjournment. In
view of the above, the Appeal stands allowed to the above extent. The pending
Applications, if any, are also to be disposed of.
[Justice Yogesh Khanna] The Officiating Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical) Prerana/md
2 of 2
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