Reward Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs Gaurav Ashok Adukia Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 21 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The imposition of costs on a single respondent while granting the same indulgence of time to all respondents, without recording any reason for singling that respondent out, is uncalled for and cannot stand; costs must rest on reasons given in the order imposing them, and a costs order that is unexplained and discriminates between similarly placed parties is liable to be set aside. An earlier order granting time for amendment or updating of pleadings without imposing costs is a circumstance weighing against the later imposition of costs for granting time to file a reply, where no distinguishing reason is recorded.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Reward Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Gaurav Ashok Adukia, ...Respondents RP of Ezeego One Tours and Travels Ltd.
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Ryan D'souza, Mr. Vikrant Singh Negi, Ms. Ekta Tyagi, Ms. Priyam Vada Singhania, Mr. Varun Kalra and Ms. Sneha Baranje, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Aditya S. Mishra, Advocate for Liquidator.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
08.01.2026: Heard counsel for the Appellant as well as Ld. Counsel for
the Liquidator.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.11.2025 passed
in IA No. 2943 of 2023 by which order while granting time to the appellant
who was respondent no.31 in the IA cost of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed.
Submission of the appellant is that the application which was filed by the RP
being 2943 of 2023 an order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority on
05.06.2025 where RP sought time to amend/update the application with
regard to array of the respondents. It is submitted that RP having not
finalised the array of respondents. Present was not a case for imposition of a
cost.
3. Ld. Counsel for the liquidator submits that time was allowed to the
respondent to file a reply and then reply having not been filed the cost was imposed. It is however submitted that the liquidator never prayed for
imposition of cost.
4. We have considered submission of the parties and perused the records.
5. The order impugned dated 27.11.2025 reads as follows:-
ORDER IA 2943/2023 Ld. Counsel for all Respondents is directed to file reply within one week, with an advance copy to the other side. This is granted as a last and final opportunity, failing which, heavy costs shall be imposed upon each Respondent. No further time will be granted at any pretext.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.31 seeks some more time to file reply. Time is granted. Let the reply be filed subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,00,000/-, to be deposited with "PAY AND ACCOUNT OFFICER, MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI". The same shall be filed with an advance copy to the other side. Rejoinder, if any, be filed.
List this matter on 15.01.2026.
6. The earlier order on which reliance has been placed by the appellant
dated 05.06.2025 is as follows:-
"ORDER IA 2943/2023 Ld. Counsel for the Applicant/Liquidator submits that he would like to amend/update the Application with regard to the array of Respondents, as they are likely to be dropped from the proceedings because no cause of action exists. In view of this, he needs short accommodation, which is granted. Thereafter,
2 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 21 of 2026 this bench will insist upon the Respondents to file the requisite replies. List this matter on 14.08.2025.
IA 2961/2021 IA 1008/2024 IA 4500/2024 Re-list this matter on 14.08.2025."
7. A perusal of the impugned order indicate that court has allowed one
week time to all the respondents to file a reply without imposing any cost
whereas with respect to present appellant cost of Rs.1,00,000/- has been
imposed. We do not find any reason given in the order to impose of cost on
appellant alone while granting time to file reply. Furthermore, the earlier
order 05.06.2025 is also a reason to desist from imposing any cost for while
granting the time for reply. We thus are satisfied that the imposition of cost
of Rs.1,00,000/- on the appellant was uncalled for. The imposition of cost is
deleted; Appeal is disposed of.
8. Counsel for the appellant submits that next date fixed is 15.01.2026
and he shall file the reply before the next date.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD
3 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 21 of 2026
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