Pci Limited vs Central Bank Of India
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 580 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against an order reserving judgment, reasoning that a party's stated intention to seek adjournment from the Adjudicating Authority, noted in the High Court's order, was not granted when the Adjudicating Authority proceeded to reserve its order, so an appeal against the reservation need not be entertained at that stage.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: PCI Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Central Bank of India ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prakhar Mithal, Mr. Ravi Data, Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Kalia, Ms. Tannu Rana, Advocates. For Respondent : Ms. Prachi Johri, Ms. Monika Shahi, Ms. Abhipsa Sahu, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
09.04.2025: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned
counsel appearing for the Respondent. This appeal has been filed against
order dated 01.04.2025, which order is as follows:
"ORDER
Learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent are present. Heard. Written submissions have been filed on behalf of both parties. Order reserved"
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Writ Petition has been
filed by the Appellant before the Delhi High Court where an order was passed
by the Delhi High Court on 26.03.2025. He referred to Para 10 of the order
which is as follows:
"10. He submits that he will be making a request to the learned NCLT for adjourning the matter after the next
Cont'd.../ 2
date fixed before this Court. The learned NCLT may consider the same having regard to the pendency of the present petition before this Court."
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the order of the High
Court was placed before the Adjudicating Authority for consideration and the
Adjudicating Authority after hearing the argument has reserved the order and
order does not reflect that there is any consideration of the order dated
26.03.2025 of the Delhi High Court.
4. When we look into Para 10 of the order of the Delhi High Court, it is
submission of the Appellant that he will be making a request to the learned
NCLT for adjourning the matter after the next date fixed before the Court.
When the Adjudicating Authority proceeded and reserved the order, it is
obvious that prayer for adjournment was not acceded to. Order having been
reserved by the Adjudicating Authority, we are of the view that at this stage
this appeal need not be entertained. With all contentions and remedies left
open to both the parties, this appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.580 of 2025
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