Oswal Minerals Limited vs Ark Engineering Private Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Oswal Minerals Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Ark Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gulsan Kr. Sachdev and Rollin Masih, Advocates. For Respondent : None.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Oral)

10.09.2025 This appeal is filed by the Operational Creditor against

the order dated 01.07.2024 by which application filed by it under Section 9

of the Code has been dismissed on the ground that the application though

filed by the Appellant on 12.03.2020 but refiled on 12.01.2021 after the

notification dated 24.03.2020 by which threshold has been increased from

Rs. One Lakh to Rs. One Crore was not maintainable.

2. Notice in the appeal was issued and on 10.12.2024 the Respondent

was proceeded against ex-parte and no effort was made by it for recalling of

the order dated 10.12.2024.

3. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has

committed an error in relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of

Prafulla Purushottamrao Gadge vs Narayan Mangal & Anr., Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 498 of 2022 while dismissing the application on the ground that

the date of filing has to be considered to be date when the application is

refiled.

4. It is submitted that the facts of the case of Prafulla Purushottamrao

Gadge (Supra) are different from the present case because in that case

application under section 7 was initially filed on 12.10.2019 but thereafter,

fresh application was filed in respect of amount less than Rs. 1 Cr. after the

notification dated 24.03.2020. It is submitted that the present case is

covered by a decision of this court in the case or S S Group Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

Shiva Asphaltic Products Pvt. Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 669 of

2022 in which it has been held that the petition was filed online mode on

17.03.2020 and physical copy was filed on 19.03.2020 which was before the

notification dated 24.03.2020.

5. We have heard Counsel for the appellant and are of the considered

opinion that the Tribunal has committed a patent error in dismissing the

application while holding that the date of filing has to be taken to be the

date of refiling. There is no dispute that the original petition was filed on

12.03.2020 and the notification came into being on 24.03.2020, however,

the petition filed on 12.03.2020 was refiled after removing the defects on

12.01.2021 which cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered to be

the date of filing.

6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present

appeal is found to be meritorious and the same is hereby allowed. The

2 of 3 impugned order is set aside. CP (IB) No. 66/Chd/PB/2021 filed by the

Appellant is restored. No costs.

I.A.s, if any, pending are hereby closed.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) Ap/rr

3 of 3