Sh. Pramod Chaudhary vs Punjab & Sind Bank
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 795 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an adjudicating authority declines to take a personal guarantor's reply on record solely because a condition of costs was not met, and the appellant shows that the costs were paid within the time fixed by the order and that the reply was emailed to the creditor before the listed date, the refusal cannot stand on that ground alone; the reply must be taken on record, and the creditor afforded a fresh opportunity to be served with it and to file a rejoinder.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Pramod Chaudhary ...Appellants Versus Punjab & Sind Bank ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sumit Kalra, Ms. Anisha Arora and Ms. Yashika Malhotra, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Brijesh Tamber, Mr. Prateek Khushwah, Mr. Aryan Dala, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
21.08.2025: This appeal has been filed against the order dated
03.01.2025 by which order the Adjudicating Authority observed that no steps
have been taken by the personal guarantor with regard to payment of cost of
Rs. 20,000/- hence reply shall not be taken into consideration. Challenging
the order, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the order was passed on
29.11.2024 for deposit of Rs. 20,000/- cost in the Prime Minister National
Relief Fund within a week and in pursuance of the said order the cost was
deposited on 06.12.2024. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has referred to
Annexure A-3 which is the receipt of the payment of cost. He further submits
that on 02.01.2025 appellant has emailed the scanned copy of the Reply to
the Bank since the matter was listed on 03.01.2025.
2. Ld. Counsel for the Bank submits that appellant has not informed the
payment of cost to the Court and not to the Bank. Counsel for the bank
submits that he has not been served with the copy of the Reply.
3. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records.
4. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has not taken the
Reply of personal guarantor only on the ground that the cost of Rs.20,000/-
has not been paid as directed on 29.011.202. The appellant has filed the
proof of the said payment which was within seven days from passing of the
order 29.11.2024. The appellant has also referred to the email dated
02.01.2025 where copy of the Reply was emailed to the Bank. In facts of the
present case, it was further noted in the order that Reply has already been
filed by the personal guarantor.
5. In facts of the present case, we set aside the order dated 03.01.2025
direct the Reply to be taken on record. Let a copy of the reply be again served
to the counsel for the bank within three days from today. It is stated that the
matter is fixed for 16.09.2025. The bank may file a Rejoinder to the reply
before the next date. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/NN
2 of 2 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 795 of 2025
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