Su Toll Road Private Limited vs State Bank Of India
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 948 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The adjudicating authority was entitled to reject an interlocutory application seeking dismissal of, or deferment of hearing on, a Section 7 petition where the corporate debtor had already filed its reply, the petition being pending for hearing before that authority, which is to hear both parties and decide the petition on its merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: S.U. Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus State Bank of India ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Aditya Panda, Ms. Aishwarya Modi and Mr. Akshay Sinha, Advocates.
For Respondent : Mr. Ankur Mittal, Ms. Sabnya Jain and Mr. Srijan Jain, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
08.07.2025: This appeal has been filed against the order dated
20.06.2025 by which I.A. No. 2768(MB)/2025 filed by the appellant has been
rejected. A Section 7 application has been filed by the financial creditor, in
which reply has been filed by the appellant, the corporate debtor.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent that Section
7 application is already being heard. Adjudicating authority by the impugned
order has dismissed the application. In paragraph 4 of the order following
has been observed:
"4. As the Corporate Debtor has already filed the reply, and under IBC, 2016 only one opportunity is given to the Applicant to file reply, under the circumstances, we are not in a position to entertain the present IA, which in our view, is frivolous and is filed in order to delay the matter. The IA is hereby returned to the Applicant."
3. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the adjudicating authority
rejecting the I.A. by which appellant has prayed that the company petition filed by the financial creditor be dismissed, or to defer the hearing. The
Appellant having already filed the reply, it is the adjudicating authority who
has to hear both the parties and take a decision on the company petition.
4. We thus do not find any ground to entertain the appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant intend to file
some additional documents.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Mittal has submitted that he
has completed his submissions.
7. It is not for this Court to express any opinion on the above subject.
Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 948 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