The Ooty Mills Private Limited vs Central Bank Of India Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 943 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority, having granted time to file a reply and the party having failed to file within the time previously allowed, is entitled to impose costs as a condition while granting any further extension of time. Costs imposed as a condition of granting further time must be proportionate to the default and the circumstances, and where a cost of Rs.1 lakh is disproportionate to the minimal delay sought, it may be reduced to Rs.10,000.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Aswinikrishnaa Textile Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Central Bank of India Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Prakhar Tandon, Mr. G. Sai Krishna Kumar, Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Asav Rajan, Mr. Kashish Chadha, Mr. Akash Saxena, Mr. Devang Shrotriya, Mr. Aditya Shah, Advocates for R-1.
With
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 945 of 2025 & I.A. No. 3670 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: The Ooty Mills Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Central Bank of India Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Prakhar Tandon, Mr. G. Sai Krishna Kumar, Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Asav Rajan, Mr. Kashish Chadha, Mr. Akash Saxena, Mr. Devang Shrotriya, Mr. Aditya Shah, Advocates for R-1.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
04.07.2025: Sufficient cause has been shown to condone delay in
refiling the appeals. Refiling delay is condoned. I.A. No.3665 of 2025 and I.A.
No.3670 of 2025 are disposed of.
Cont'd..../ 2
2. These two appeals have been filed against the orders dated 09.05.2025
passed in C.P. (IB)/201(MB)2025 and C.P. (IB)/213(MB)2025. The Appeal
having been filed by the Corporate Debtor challenging the only part of the
order dated 09.05.2025 by which cost has been imposed while granting
extension of one day for filing the Reply.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that 7 days' time was earlier
granted and Appellant sought only one-day time to file reply, on which cost of
Rs.1 Lakh was imposed while allowing time to file reply.
4. Appellant having not filed the Reply within the time allowed by the
Court the Adjudicating Authority was entitled to impose cost while granting
any further time. However, we are of the view that cost of Rs.1 Lakh imposed
by the impugned order deserves to be reduced to Rs.10,000/- each.
Impugned order is modified to be above extent. Appellant is granted seven
days' time to deposit the cost and to file reply on record. Appeals are disposed
of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice N Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.943 and 945 of 2025
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