Venugopal N Dhoot vs Abhijit Guhathakurta And Anr & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Venugopal N Dhoot, Suspended Director of Videocon Industries Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Abhijit Guhathakurta, RP for the Corporate Debtor & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sandeep S. Laddha, Mr. Akshat Malpani, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Madhav Kanoria, Ms. Surabhi Khattar, Ms. Neha Shivhare, Mr. Sriharsh Roy, Advocate. Mr. Shantanu Tyagi, Mr. Balapragatha M, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

10.02.2026: I.A. No. 7155 of 2025: This is an application praying for

condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The order impugned dated

23.09.2025 was passed in the order sheet in I.A. No.226 of 2023. The

Appellant's case is that on the date when the order was passed request was

made on behalf of the Appellant for adjournment which was communicated

in advance to the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent and when

case was taken, a request was made to the Court to adjourn the matter. It is

submitted that in the order various applications were decided but presence in

I.A. No.226 of 2023 is not mentioned. Appellant could not know about the

order passed in his application and it come to know about the order when

order was uploaded on 31.10.2025, hence, this appeal was filed on

11.11.2025. Learned counsel for the Appellant has relied on order of this

Cont'd.../ Court in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.108 & 109 of 2024 dated 19.01.2024

in Sanjay Pandurang Kalate vs. IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. & Anr.

2. Learned counsel for the Respondent opposing the submission of learned

counsel for the Appellant submits that proxy counsel Mr. Adnan Ansari has

been appearing for the Applicant in this application from several earlier dates,

which is recorded in the order sheet and the order was pronounced in the

Court, hence, there was no explanation for delay.

3. From the facts brought on the record, especially fact that in I.A. No.226

of 2023 no appearances are mentioned for the counsel and Appellant has filed

an Affidavit of the counsel that he made request for adjournment which was

not turned down. It is admitted fact that order was passed on order sheet

and was subsequently uploaded on 31.10.2025. In facts of the present case,

we are of the view that delay in filing the appeal has to be condoned. Delay

in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. No.7155 of 2025 is disposed of.

4. This appeal has been filed against order dated 23.09.2025 in I.A.

No.226 of 2023. In I.A. No.226 of 2023 order impugned is as follows:

"IA 226/2023

The respondent herein is directed to provide this information as mentioned at Annexure Exhibit-k to this application by the next date of hearing failing which the appropriate action will be taken against the defaulting directors. List this application on 13.11.2025."

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that on the said date when

the I.A. was listed, request was made on behalf of the counsel appearing for

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1837 of 2025 2 of 3 the Appellant for adjournment, which was communicated in advance to

learned counsel for the Respondent and Court has observed that the said

request shall be considered when the matter is heard. It is submitted that

the Court never rejected the request for adjournment and the order was

passed whereas reply to the I.A. has been filed long back. Learned counsel

for the Respondent submits that the application has not been disposed of and

is still pending. It is submitted that said application was listed on several

occasions but could not be disposed of. In view of the fact that I.A. No.226 of

2023 is still pending, we are of the view that Adjudicating Authority may

consider deciding the application after hearing both the parties, however, the

observation made in the order dated 23.09.2025 may not come in way of the

disposal of the application I.A. No.226 of 2023, in accordance with law. With

above observation, appeal is disposed of.

6. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that application has been

subsequently adjourned sine die, which submission is disputed by the

Respondent. However, it is not shown that application is disposed of. The

application being still pending, the Adjudicating Authority on request of the

parties may fix a date for hearing.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/md

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1837 of 2025 3 of 3