Sudhir Thackersey vs Capricon Realty Private Limited & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Sudhir K. Thackersey ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Capricon Realty Private Limited & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhirup Das Gupta, Ms. Srishti Juneja, Ms. Tejaswi Bhanu, Ms. Vagisha Tiwari and Ms. Surbhi Sachdeva, Advocates.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Sen, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nakul Mohta, Mr. Hitesh Nagar and Mr. Rohit K. Debnath, Advocates for R1.

Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Karishma Rao, Adv. Rashna Dastur, Mr. Punit Jain, Ms. Geetika Sharma and Ms. Pramita Mishra, Advocates for R2.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

25.09.2026 By the impugned order, which is under challenged, in

fact, the Ld. Tribunal has only proceeded to mark the matter as 'part heard',

for orders on an application for a waiver, being I.A. No. 127 of 2026. In the

subsequent part of the order i.e., the order on I.A. No. 202 of 2026, that has

been directed to be listed on 25.11.2026.

2. In the subsequent proceedings that have taken place before the Ld.

Tribunal, the application for waiver the orders as it has already been reserved and the application I.A. No. 202 of 2026 has been deferred to be

heard on 25.11.2026.

3. Because of the fact as pleaded was that the purpose of the challenge

to the impugned order of 02.09.2026, as of now stands frustrated because of

the subsequent reserving of an order on 23.09.2026, on an application for

waiver and also because of the deferment of the order on the I.A. No. 202 of

2026, where the Appellant had sought an interim relief, practically, no

merit, which still survives to be considered so far as the impugned order is

concerned, the grant of interim order on its consideration is based on the

order to be passed a waiver application.

4. The Appellant could exercise its right qua the question involved

pertaining to the waiver or even regards to the issued interim relief, only

when he actually puts a question to challenge the order of 23.09.2026,

which has been subsequently reserved by the Tribunal.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that he is withdrawing the

Appeal, subject to the condition that the liberty to prefer an Appeal against

the order of 23.09.2026 is reserved. We don't have any reservations to

observe that it would always be open for the Appellant to put the challenge

to the order of 23.09.2026 since being an independent order in accordance

with law.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant expressed that apprehending the

embargo of limitation, because of the fact that the order of 23.09.2026 has

2 of 3 not yet been uploaded by the Ld. Tribunal, he is not in a position to

challenge the same. Owing to the objection raised by the Registry of this

Tribunal, due not furnishing certified copy, while closing this Company

Appeal, so far as it relates to the challenge given to the order of 23.09.2026,

we request the Ld. Tribunal to ensure to upload the order dated 23.09.2026

within three days from today. The Registry is directed to intimate this order

for necessary compliance.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Abhishek/Ravi Member (Technical)

3 of 3