Vikas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Abinash Chander Mahajan & Ors
- CitationCompany Petition No.1 10(ND)2009. It is accordingly dismissed as not
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal against an order passed on 22nd March, 2017 is dismissed as not pressed and as barred by limitation, where the condonation-of-delay ground shown was found unsatisfactory and the appellant, through counsel, did not press the appeal. Where an order has become final and is not interfered with, a subsequent order which rests on the same earlier order is not reopened merely because the appellant has deposited a further sum; the appellant may bring the deposit to the Tribunal's notice, but this does not entitle it to adjust any sum against the amount directed to be deposited without a specific direction permitting such adjustment.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Vikas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. . . .Appellants
Versus
Abinash Chander Mahajan & Ors, ...Respondents
Present: For Appellants: Mr. Sunil Fernandes and Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocates.
For Respondents: Mr. K. Datta and Ms. Prachi John, Advocates.
ORDER
12.09.2017 - One of the impugned order was pronounced by the
Tribunal in open Court on 22nd March, 2017. A petition for
condonation of delay has been filed in respect of such order. However,
as we are not satisfied with the ground shown by the appellant,
learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant will not
press the appeal against the order dated 22nd March, 2017 passed in
Company Petition No.1 10(ND)2009. It is accordingly dismissed as not
pressed and being barred by limitation.
In so far as the other impugned order dated 4th August,
2017 is concerned, Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that
the Tribunal was requested to modify the order dated 22nd March,
2017 on the ground that the appellants have subsequently deposited
amount of Rs. 3.5 crores. However, as the impugned order dated 22nd '4
-2-
March, 2017 has reached finality, we are not inclined to interfere with
the order dated 4th August, 2017.
However, this order will not come in the way of the appellant to
bring to the notice of the Tribunal that they have deposited a sum of
Rs.3.5 crores, but that does not mean that we have allowed the
appellant to adjust the sum of Rs.50 lakhs against the said amount.
Both the appeals are dismissed with aforesaid observations.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Justice A.I.S. Cheema) (Balvinder Singh) Member (Judicial) Member(Technical)
ar
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