Srs Real Estate Limited vs Canara Bank
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1709 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning rests on the proposition that where an adjudicating authority has granted repeated opportunities to file a reply and the party has not availed of them, the authority's order striking off the right to reply is not vitiated by any error warranting interference in appeal, and the appeal against such an order is liable to dismissal, subject to the liberty to file written submissions within a specified time.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: SRS Real Estate Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Canara Bank ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Ganesh Chand Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Rakshit Gupta, Advocate.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
11.11.2025 : I.A. No. 6730 of 2025
This is an application praying for condonation of 05 days delay in
filing the appeal. We find sufficient cause shown in the application to
condone the delay. Delay condoned.
CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1709 of 2025
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.09.2025 by
which order right to reply has been struck off by an Adjudicating Authority.
The Section 7 application was filed in which on 30.04.2025 Adjudicating
Authority issued notice and granted one week's time to file a reply then the
matter was listed on 04.06.2025, when the counsel appeared for the
corporate debtor. The order of 04.06.2025 directed as follows:-
"ORDER A date is requested by learned counsel for the respondent for filing reply. Let the same be filed within two weeks with copy in advance to the counsel opposite. Last opportunity is granted. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter with copy in advance to the counsel opposite. List on 06.08.2025."
Again on 06.08.2025, Adjudicating Authority granted one week's time
subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant. Appellant inspite of the
orders dated 06.08.2025 did not filed a Reply when the matter taken up on
18.09.2025 the following order was passed:-
"ORDER It is submitted by ld. counsel for the respondent- Mr. Nitin Kant Setia that the reply could not be filed as directed in the last order dated 06.09.2025 due to certain constraints. However, it is seen that the last opportunity was given subject to cost of Rs.10,000/-. In view of the repeated non- compliance on the part of the respondent, the right to reply is struck of. List the matter for arguments on 12.11.2025.
Counsel for the appellant submits that he should be allowed one more
opportunity to file a Reply. He submits that due to certain unavoidance
circumstances reply has not been filed. The present is a case where
Adjudicating Authority passed three orders from 30.04.2025 till 06.08.2025
granting opportunity to the corporate debtor to file a reply which has not
been availed of.
We do not find any error in the order of 18.09.2025 of the
Adjudicating Authority saying that right to reply is struck off. We do not find
any error of the order of 18.09.2025 the appeal is dismissed.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1709 of 2025 2 of 3 We however observe that it shall be open to the appellant to file a
written submission within one week before the Adjudicating Authority.
Ld. Counsel for the Canara Bank has also appeared.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Harleen/MD
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1709 of 2025 3 of 3
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