Otipy Internet Private Limited vs Respondent(S)
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 494 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal, in setting aside an order dismissing a Section 10 application for want of prosecution where the applicant's counsel was present and sought time to comply with a direction to file documents, held that the Adjudicating Authority should have granted a short period of time for compliance, and that in the circumstances one opportunity to file the required documents, by affidavit within two weeks, should be given; accordingly the dismissal was set aside and the application revived for fresh consideration on its merits, without any opinion being expressed on those merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Otipy Internet Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Versus --- ...Respondent(s)
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ms. Simran Mehrotra, Ms. Salevino Chale, Advocates
For Respondents :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
20.03.2026 I.A. No. 1923 of 2026 This is an Application praying for
condonation of 5 days delay in filing the Appeal.
Sufficient cause has been shown in delay condonation application for
condonation of 5 days delay in filing the Appeal.
Delay condoned.
I.A. No. 1843 of 2026 This is an Application praying for condonation of 45
days delay in refiling the Appeal.
Sufficient cause has been shown in Paragraph 4 of the Application.
Refiling delay condoned.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 494 of 2026 This Appeal has been filed against
the order dated 08/12/2025, by which Adjudicating Authority rejected Section
10 Application.
2. Ld. Counsel for Appellant submitted that Counsel for Applicant was
present and they were prosecuting the Application and for compliance of the
order to file documents, prayed for time to file the documents.
3. Adjudicating Authority should have allowed the prayer of Appellant and
grant liberty of one week to which Appellant's documents ought to have been
filed. However, Adjudicating Authority refused the prayer of the Appellant and
rejected and dismissed the Application for want of prosecution.
4. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that one opportunity
be given to the Appellant to file the document, as required by the Adjudicating
Authority as per order dated 12/09/2025.
5. Appellants are allowed two weeks time to file document, by means of
Affidavit.
6. The order dated 08/12/2025 is set aside and the C.P(IB)/497/ND/2025
is revived before the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration.
7. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of
the application and it is for the Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter in
accordance with law.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] 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