Ovt India Private Limited vs Vijender Singh
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1780 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order contains reasoning on two matters, each stated on the face of the text. Delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal may be condoned where the applicant shows sufficient cause for the delay. Where the appellant has discovered, after the impugned order, material (a personal guarantee) that was not before the adjudicating authority, the appropriate course is to leave the appellant free to file a fresh application before the adjudicating authority under the relevant provision along with that material, and it is not necessary to keep the appeal pending for that purpose; the appeal may be dismissed on that footing without any expression on the merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: OVT India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Vijender Singh ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sinha Shrey Nikhilesh, Mr. Swastik Verma and Mr. Parth Davar, Advocates.
For Respondent : Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Magi, Mr. Soumya, Mr. Ankit Srivastva and Ms. Khushboo Sai Khurana, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
19.12.2025 : I.A. No. 6948/2025
1. This is an application praying for condonation of 13 days delay in filing
of the appeal.
2. We find sufficient cause shown in the application for condonation of
delay in filing of the appeal.
Delay condoned.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1780/2025
1. Heard counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing
for the respondent.
2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 28.07.2025 passed
by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court - IV) by which adjudicating authority has dismissed the Section 95
application filed by the appellant observing that there is no deed of guarantee
on the record and the counsel for the applicant was not in possession to show
personal guarantee executed by the respondent in Tripartite Agreement.
3. In the appeal, the appellant has pleaded that appellant has now
discovered the document of personal guarantee subsequently on 29.08.2025
i.e., subsequent to passing of the impugned order.
4. In view of the above fact, we are of the view that course open for the
appellant to file afresh application under Section 95 along with the
appropriate material. We, thus do not find any reason to keep the appeal
pending. We make it clear that all the arguments of both the parties shall be
kept open to be decided in accordance with law and no expression on merits
is made in this appeal accordingly.
Subject to above observations, appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1780 of 2025 & I.A. No. 6948 of 2025 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