Rohit P Chhabra & Ors vs Sanjay Kumar Ruia & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 923 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority's rejection of an application challenging an ex parte admission order, on the ground that the applicant was deemed validly served once notice was issued, is not interfered with where the pleadings in the application did not raise allegations under Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; a plea under Section 65 must be made by application during the pendency of the proceeding, and the appellate tribunal declines to entertain an appeal that seeks to have such allegations considered in that appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Rohit P. Chhabra & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Sanjay Kumar Ruia & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellants : Mr. Malak Bhatt, Ms. Chhavi Tokas, Mr. Shreyansh Chpra, Mr. Divol Dighe, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Siddharth Nath, Mr. Anunay Chowdhary, Mr. Asjad Hussain, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Ishan Roy Chowdhury, Ms. Muskan Khatana, Advocates R-3 (RP).
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
26.05.2026: This appeal has been filed against the order dated
10.04.2026 passed in I.A. No.289 of 2017. The Adjudicating Authority by the
impugned order has dismissed the application. Learned counsel for the
Appellant submits that although the application was heard on several
occasions but it has been dismissed without considering various averments
made therein.
2. In the application I.A. No.289 of 2017, the prayers were made where the
Appellant/ Applicant has made grievances with regard to ex-parte order dated
12.04.2017 by which application under Section 9 was admitted. The prayers
which are in the application indicate that challenge was confined by the
applicant that he was not served and no opportunity was granted. The said
Cont'd.../ application was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority holding that notice
was issued, the Appellant will be deemed to be validly served.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant sought to contend that he has already
made pleading within meaning of Section 65 of IBC and affidavit was filed
thereafter.
4. A perusal of various pleadings in the application indicate that allegation
were not in respect to Section 65 of the IBC. We, thus, are of the view that
order rejecting the application cannot be faulted with.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent also submitted that there has been
an order by this Tribunal in the year 2020 to consider application for
liquidation, which is pending for last more than 5 years and not yet been
decided.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that it is not the Appellant
who has to be blamed for non-decision of liquidation application.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submitted that there are
other applications filed against the Appellant which are pending.
8. Be that as it may. We see no reason to entertain this appeal. As far as
prayer of the Appellant that his allegations under Section 65 need to be
considered, it is always open for the parties to file application under Section
65 during pendency of the proceeding. With this observation, we dismiss the
appeal.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 923 of 2026 2 of 3
9. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of
the allegations of either of the parties.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 923 of 2026 3 of 3
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