Sameer Gupta vs Acreage Properties Private Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Sameer Gupta ...Appellant

Versus

Acreage Properties Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Dhruv Pande & Mr. Karan Kohli, Advocates For Respondent : Appearance not marked

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

25.08.2026 Heard Shri Abhishek Anand, Learned Counsel for the

Appellant, and perused the records.

2. We notice that the Respondents have already been served by the Appellant

through e-mail. Otherwise also the nature of the order we intend to pass is such

whereby the rights of the Respondents would not be adversely affected. Thus, the

issuance of any further notices to the Respondent is hereby dispensed with.

3. The instant appeal has been filed by the Appellant, who was arrayed as

Respondent No. 12 in I.A. No. 4775 of 2020, moved under Section 47 of the Code,

whereby the I.A. No. 2728 of 2026, moved by the Appellant, has been dismissed on

the ground that the same has been preferred with considerable delay.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention towards the

order passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority on 07.11.2024, in I.A. No.

4775 of 2020, whereby an opportunity to file a reply was provided to Respondent

Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and for other Respondents the proceedings were set ex-parte,

including the Appellant, who was arrayed as Respondent No. 11.

1|Page

5. It is indicated by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant

herein was arrayed as Respondent No. 11 before the Learned Adjudicating

Authority and the perusal of order dated 07.11.2024 would reveal that Respondent

Nos. 11 to 13 to that proceedings were represented before the Learned Adjudicating

Authority on that day through their Advocate, Shri Dhruv Pandey and even in the

presence of the Counsel for Respondent No. 11, the proceedings were directed to

proceed ex-parte.

6. It is further submitted that, on 03.01.2025, when I.A. No. 4775 of 2020 was

next listed, it was again observed by Learned Adjudicating Authority that the

proceedings against the other Respondents, except Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, had

already been set as ex-parte.

7. It is further submitted that to recall the order dated 03.01.2025 and I.A. No.

3496 of 2025 was filed by the Appellant and the notice was issued vide order dated

21.07.2025.

8. It is further submitted that, vide order dated 19.02.2026, the Counsel for the

Applicant in I.A. No. 4775 of 2020 was given two weeks' time to file the rejoinder

and on the same day the I.A. No. 3496 of 2025, was disposed of in terms of I.A. No.

3948 of 2025 (The I.A. No. 3948 of 2025 was dismissed as withdrawn with the

liberty given to move appropriate application to recall the order dated 07.11.2024).

Thus, Appellant was also given opportunity to move appropriate application to

recall order dated 07.11.2024.

9. It is further submitted that I.A. No. 2728 of 2026 was moved by the

Appellant, in pursuance of the liberty given by the Learned Adjudicating Authority

for recall of the order dated 07.11.2024, however, by passing the impugned order

the same has been dismissed only on the ground that the application has been

moved with considerable delay.

2|Page

10. It is vehemently submitted that there was no delay on the part of the

Appellant in moving the application, as under some inadvertent mistake he has

moved an application I.A. No. 3496 of 2025 to recall the order dated 03.01.2025

instead of order dated 07.11.2024 subsequently I.A. No. 2728 of 2026 was moved

under the direction of the Learned Adjudicating Authority passed on 19.02.2026,

thus the impugned order may kindly be set aside and the reply already filed by the

Appellant before the Learned Adjudicating Authority may be directed to be taken on

record, with a consequential direction of permitting participation of the Appellant in

the proceeding pending before the Learned Adjudicating Authority.

11. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the

record.

12. It is evident that the Appellant was set ex-parte on 07.11.2024 and the said

order was continued on 03.01.2025. However, under some misconception an

application I.A. No. 3496 of 2025 was moved by the Appellant to recall/set aside of

the order dated 03.01.2025, instead of the order dated 07.11.2024. Subsequently,

it was noticed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority that the application has been

moved with regard to the order dated 03.01.2025 and it is in this regard the I.A.

No. 3496 of 2025 was disposed of on 19.02.2026 in terms of I.A. No. 3948 of 2025

which was dismissed as withdrawn and liberty was given to the Applicant to move

an appropriate application to recall the order dated 07.11.2024. Thus, opportunity

was also provided to Appellant to move appropriate application for recall of order

dated 07.11.2024, and in pursuance of this order, the I.A. No. 2728 of 2026 was

moved by the Appellant which has been dismissed by passing impugned order.

13. Thus, the above sequence of events would reveal that there was no

considerable delay so far as moving of the application i.e., I.A. No. 2728 of 2026 by

the Appellant is concerned for the recall of the order dated 07.11.2024. However,

the only mistake appears to have been committed by the Appellant is to have

3|Page moved the application for recall/set aside of the order dated 03.01.2025, while the

same should have been moved for recall of the order dated 07.11.2024. Having

regard to the above fact and circumstances, we are of the considered view that an

hyper-technical view has been taken by the Learned Adjudicating Authority while

passing the impugned order as the I.A. No. 2728 of 2026 was in fact moved by the

Appellant under the directions of the Learned Adjudicating Authority passed on

19.02.2026. In our considered view the Appellant may be provided opportunity to

contest the case before the Learned Adjudicating Authority.

14. During the course of deliberation an order dated 13.07.2026, passed by the

Learned Adjudicating Authority has been placed before us, in order to show that

the next date of listing in I.A. No. 4775 of 2020 is 27.08.2026 and that the said I.A.

is still not disposed of. The said order is taken on record.

15. Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal filed by the

Appellant is allowed the impugned order passed by the Learned Adjudicating

Authority is hereby set aside and order dated 07.11.2024 is recalled only to the

extent of Respondent No. 11/Appellant. The reply may be filed by the Appellant/

Respondent No. 11, within five days before the Learned Adjudicating Authority and

the Appellant is further permitted to participate in the proceeding.

16. There is no order as to costs. The appeal is finally disposed of in above

terms.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) KS/MR

4|Page