Scb Steels Private Limited vs Respondent
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1210 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
It is well settled that what is recorded in the proceedings of a Court must be treated as a correct record of what transpired, and a party cannot be permitted to contend otherwise in appeal; accordingly, where the order under challenge records the applicant's counsel's submission that they were unable to effect service, that recorded statement is accepted as true. An affidavit of service filed before an earlier order which itself directed fresh service by a later date cannot be relied upon to answer the default in complying with the subsequent order; the later order governs and the earlier filing is of no avail.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: SCB Steels Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus --- ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Present but appearance not marked.
For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
21.08.2025 : Heard counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 19.05.2025, by which
order Section 10 application filed by the appellant has been dismissed for
non-prosecution.
3. The order dated 19.05.2025 is as follows:
"IB/518/ND/2023 ORDER Mr. Shivpartap Singh Thakur, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant is present through VC.
This Tribunal by order dated 23.04.2025 directed the applicant to take steps to serve the notice to the respondent by way of Dasti but till date the said order has not been complied with. Today, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that they are not in position to serve the notice through Dasti. It seems that the applicant is not interested in pursuing the matter, therefore, the present Application is dismissed for non prosecution and non compliance of the order dated 23.04.2025."
4. Earlier order was passed by the adjudicating authority on 23.04.2025
issuing notice by Dasti to the creditors as mentioned in the list. Appellant did not take any steps to serve and when the matter came on the next date
i.e., 19.05.2025, Court passed the order as noted above.
5. Learned counsel or the appellant submitted that appellant prayed for
time to affect service which was not granted. The order dated 19.05.2025
clearly mentions that counsel for the appellant submitted that they are not in
a position to serve the notice through Dasti. We have no reason to not accept
the facts stated in the order. It is well settled that what happens in the Court
has to be treated as recorded by the Court, no party can be allowed to make
any contention otherwise.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the order dated
17.01.2025, where it has been noticed that applicant in compliance of the
order dated 06.12.2024 has placed on record the affidavit of service. The
order dated 23.04.2025 was passed subsequent to the order dated
17.01.2025 hence filing of the said affidavit of service is of no avail.
7. We do not find any error in the order dismissing the Section 10
application.
Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1210 of 2025 2 of 2
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