Shiv Nandi Investments Pvt. Ltd vs Devendra Umrao
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1900 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order dismissing a homebuyer's application for condonation of delay and its successive recall applications was set aside, because the applicant's counsel asserted that no first listing intimation was received from the Registry, a point that required testing before the Adjudicating Authority. Whether the Tribunal laid down a general rule is not apparent from the text; the reasoning is confined to the facts, and the ground was that a dismissal resting on a claimed failure of listing notice, if established, would be a sufficient basis for interference, so the matter was remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to examine it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Shiv Nandi Investments Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant Vs.
Devendra Umrao ...Respondent For Appellant Mr. Sumant Batra, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Ms. Riya Kaur Arora, Advocates. For Respondent Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli, Ms. Palak Kalra, Advocates for RP
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
07.10.2026: This Appeal is filed against an impugned order dated
01.09.2026 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal) New Delhi Bench (Court-II) whereby new RA- 82 of 2026 was
dismissed. The facts are IA No.6027 of 2025 was preferred by the Applicant
seeking condonation of delay of 468 days in filing the claim as a homebuyer
before the Resolution Professional but such application was dismissed for
default on 12.12.2025. RA- 06 of 2026 was thus moved by the Applicant for
recall of the order dated 12.12.2025 but it was also dismissed for default on
06.05.2026. Later yet another RA- 74 of 2026 was filed and it was also
dismissed on 19.08.2026 for default and thereafter, the last RA-82 of 2026 was
filed which was also dismissed on the ground the Appellant was not serious in
pursuing his remedy as is shown by his conduct enumerated in the impugned
order. However, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits the Appellant had 2
not received any notice, first listing intimation from the Registry for listing of
his RA- 82 of 2026 and for RA-74 of 2026.
2. Considering the fact the Appellant is a homebuyer, though an
institutional one, in the interest of justice, we allow this Appeal and set aside
the order dated 01.09.2026 qua RA- 82 of 2026 as the Ld. Counsel for the
Appellant has submitted the reason for dismissal of the IA was he was not
being intimated of the first listing by the Registry. Let this argument be also
tested by the Ld. NCLT.
3. With these reasons, we set aside the order dated 01.09.2026, subject to
cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid in the account of the Corporate Debtor, to be
used for the purposes of CIRP, within a week from today and the application
be listed before the Ld. NCLT on the date fixed.
[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Officiating Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
(Ajai Das Mehrotra) Member (Technical) Anjali/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1900 of 2026
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