Sai Infinium Limited vs Anand Multitrade Through Its Partner ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 305 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal approved the Adjudicating Authority's observation on the conduct of the corporate debtor's authorised representative, and in doing so accepted that the manner in which the corporate debtor conducted the proceedings and the conduct of its representative were proper matters for the Adjudicating Authority to note. Where the matter is already listed for a fixed date and written submissions have been called for, the Appellate Tribunal may, in its discretion, permit the party against whom an ex-parte proceeding was ordered to file a reply and rejoinder on the record, subject to the payment of costs, rather than setting aside the ex-parte order and remitting the matter.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Sai Infinium Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Anand Multitrade ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Vinit Nayar, Bijesh Gupta, Adv.
For Respondents : Adv. Monaal Davawala.
With
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 306 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
Sai Infinium Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Aditya Steels ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Vinit Nayar, Bijesh Gupta, Adv.
For Respondents : Adv. Monaal Davawala.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
16.02.2026: These two appeals have been filed by the CD challenging
the order dated 13.01.2026 in I.A No. 1520 of 2025 and 1521 of 2025 in CP
(IB) No. 315 & 314 of 2025. By the application, the Appellant has prayed for setting aside the order to proceed ex-parte against the CD, which has been
rejected.
2. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has noticed that in
the CP the matter was fixed on 20.08.2025 and again notice was issued and
matter was fixed on 30.09.2025 and thereafter on 12.11.2025.
3. The authorised representative appearing for the Appellant submitted
that although on 12.11.2025 the Appellant was present and sought time to
file his authorisation but time was not granted.
4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has pointed out the observation of the
Adjudicating Authority in the order where the conduct of the PCS was not
appreciated, we also notice the observation made in para 9.
5. The Adjudicating Authority has not committed an error in noticing the
manner in which the CD proceeded in the matter and the conduct of the PCS
who was appearing.
6. We are of the view that the said observation of the Adjudicating
Authority needs to be approved. The authorised representative appearing for
the Appellant however submits that now 17.03.2026 is next date fixed in the
matter and written submissions have been asked from the Applicant.
7. In view of the fact that the matter is already fixed on 17.03.2026 we are
of the view that one opportunity be given to the CD to file a reply alongwith
written submissions which have already been asked within one week from
today. Rejoinder to the reply alongwith written submissions may also be filed
within one week. The Adjudicating Authority may proceed to hear on the date
fixed, by taking the reply and rejoinder on the record, we permit the Appellant to file the reply subject to payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- in each of the matter
which shall be paid to the Applicant i.e OC within two weeks. Both the appeals
are disposed of.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Indevar Pandey] 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