Sudhir Hirenwarn & Ors vs Linkson International Ltd & Ors
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2280 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The court holds that where an adjudicating authority's order is delivered on a particular date, limitation for an appeal against it runs from the date of delivery, so that a party's claimed lack of awareness of the proceedings, coming to light only some weeks after the order, does not on the reasons advanced justify condoning a delay of 96 days, and the delay condonation application and the appeal are accordingly rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
SudhirHirenwar&Ors. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Linkson International Ltd. &Ors. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : For Respondents : Mr. Gaurav H. Sethi, Mr. Rahul Pawar, Mr. Rahul Kapoor, Advocates.
With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 830 of 2024 & I.A. No. 3003 of 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
YashwantLalchandSangla, ...Appellant(s) (Suspended Director of Linkson International Ltd.) &Ors.
Versus
Manish Baldeva, ...Respondent(s) (Liquidator of Linkson International Ltd.) &Ors. Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gaurav H. Sethi, Mr. Rahul Pawar, Mr. Rahul Kapoor, Advocates. For Respondents : Ms. Aditi Tuteja, Advocate for R-1. ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
30.04.2025: I.A. No. 8578 of 2024-This is an application filed by the
appellant praying for condonation of 96 days' delay in filing the appeal.
Order was passed on 23.02.2024 and this appeal has been e-filed on
28.06.2024.
Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that appellant was not aware
of the proceedings and hence they could not file the appeal within time.
After the order was passed they came to know only in the month of March,
2024.
Be that as it may, application was filed against the appellant which
was heard and decided by the Adjudicating Authority and order was
delivered on 23.02.2024. When the order was delivered on 23.02.2024
limitation shall commence from the date of delivery of the order and we are
of the view that on the reasons as submitted by the appellant the delay of 96
days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. Delay condonation application
is rejected. Memo of appeal is also rejected.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 830 of 2024
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Respondent No.
8/Nagpur NagrikSahakari Bankhas not yet filed the reply. Although time
was allowed earlier. We allow three weeks' further time to file a reply. Two
weeks for rejoinder.
List on 08.07.2025.
Interim order to continue.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[BarunMitra] Member (Technical)
[ArunBaroka] Member (Technical) sr/nn
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