Sushmita Dey vs M/S C&C Towers Ltd

Sushmita Dey ...Appellant

Versus

C & C Towers Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Present but appearance not marked.

For Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for R-1 (RP). Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Ms. Vatsala Kak, Mr. Raghav Dembla and Mr. Shauryta Shyam, Advocates for R-3 (SRA).

ORDER

06.02.2023: I.A. No. 500 of 2023: This is an application praying for condonation of 14 days delay in filing the Appeal. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that order was uploaded on 11.01.2023, hence, there was delay in filing the Appeal.

2. We are of the view that delay being within less than 15 days and sufficient cause having shown, delay in filing the Appeal is condoned.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 15.12.2022 by which I.A. No. 179/2022 has been rejected by following order:

"IA No. 179/2022 Despite the last accommodation given to the applicant in our order dated 06.09.2022. None has appeared on the behalf of the petitioner. It seems that he is not interest in pursuing the present application. Hence,

Cont'd.../ -2-

present application is dismissed for want of prosecution."

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that I.A. No. 179/2022 was filed on 06.09.2022 on which dated next date was fixed to 29.09.2022. On next date, time for reply was granted and further on 17.11.2022 matter could not be heard due to paucity of time and on the next date i.e. 15.12.2022, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is submits that mode of hearing from virtual to physical was changed on 14.12.2022 due to which change there was no appearance on behalf of the Appellant.

5. We are of the view that in view of the fact that from 06.09.2022 to 15.12.2022, twice the Appellant was present, there was no occasion for the Adjudicating Authority to reject the application for want of prosecution. In view of the above, we set aside order dated 15.12.2022 passed in I.A. No. 179/2022 and revive the application I.A. No. 179/2022 before the Adjudicating Authority to the heard in accordance with law.

6. We have also heard learned counsel for Respondent No.1 - the Resolution Professional and learned counsel for Respondent No.3 - the Successful Resolution Applicant. In facts of the present case, we have not issued notice to Respondent No.2. Liberty is reserved to Respondent No.2 to make an application if they feel so aggrieved. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 126 of 2023