P.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd & Anr & Ors vs M/S Charm Investments Private Limited & ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 874 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority is entitled to reject an intervention application as duplicative where an application raising similar grounds under Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is already pending before it, since allowing the intervention would result in duplicity of proceedings. The imposition of costs on a party for filing such an intervention application is not sustainable where the rejection itself is upheld on the ground of duplicity, and costs are accordingly set aside.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
P.P. Jewelers Pvt. Ltd & Anr. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Charms Investment Pvt Ltd & Anr. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sujoy Datta, Vibhor Kapoor, Kinjal Goyal, Abhishek Chabbra, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Ankur Mittal, Aditya, Adv. For R1 Adv. Kanika Singhal, Adv. Muskan Puri, for R2
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 12.05.2026: This appeal has been filed against the order dated
20.04.2026 by which the Adjudicating Authority has rejected the Intervention
Petition No.15 of 2026 filed by the Appellant. The Adjudicating Authority in
the impugned order has noticed that the Appellant has already filed an
application i.e I.A No. 882 of 2026 under Section 65 of the Code. The
Adjudicating Authority took the view that Section 65 application on similar
ground is already pending, hence, there is no necessity to permit the
intervention by the Appellant. The application be rejected with cost of Rs. 1
Lakh on the Appellant.
2. Ld. counsel for the Appellant submitted that by intervention application
Applicant was raising certain additional issues which were required to be
considered.
3. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.
4. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that when Section 65
application has already been filed by the Appellant which is pending
consideration, there is no necessity to allow the Intervention Application filed
by the Appellant which will nothing but duplicacy of proceedings. We are of
the view that the order dated 20.04.2026 passed by the Adjudicating
Authority cannot be faulted, however, we are of the view that the cost of Rs.
1 Lakh need to be deleted. The appeal is disposed of. We make it clear that
any observation made in the impugned order shall have no effect while
considering Section 65 application in accordance with law.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Sheetal/Manu
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