Wellcome Steel Through Its Proprietor ... vs Kavish International Trading Private ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1176 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal held that where a party fails to act promptly on a direction to cure a defect in its application, and seeks extension of time only after several months, it may be granted a further limited extension of time, but only on condition of payment of costs.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Wellcome Steel Through its Sole Proprietor Abdul Hafiz Murtaza Hussain Khan ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Kavish International Trading Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Tushar Thareja, Advocate. For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
21.10.2024: I.A. No. 7076 of 2024
This is an application filed by the appellant praying for grant of two
weeks' additional time to the Petitioner to file the requisite affidavit under
Section 9(3)(b) of the IBC, 2016 before the Adjudicating Authority in
compliance of order dated 19.02.2024. The appeal filed by the appellant was
disposed of by order dated 19.02.2024.
In paragraph 7 of the order while deciding the appeal we directed as
follows:
-2-
"7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to and relied on the proviso to Section 9(3)(b) which requires that Appellant should be given an opportunity to remove the defects if any in the application. It is submitted that no opportunity was given to the Appellant to cure the defect. We are of the view that ends of justice will be served in setting aside the Order of the Adjudicating Authority and reviving the Section 9 Application to be heard afresh before the Adjudicating Authority. Appellant is allowed three weeks' time to file requisite affidavit before the Adjudicating Authority and the Adjudicating Authority shall fix a date after three weeks and hear the application in accordance with law.
Appeal is disposed of".
This application has been filed by the appellant on 02.08.2024 seeking
an extension of time which has come for hearing today.
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has given reasons in paragraph 3, 4 and
5 for not being enable to file the affidavit within the time as allowed by the
court. Three weeks' time was allowed to the appellant to make the application
to file the affidavit as required by Section 9(3) (b) of the IBC, 2016.
We are of the view that appellant has not taken any prompt steps to
comply the order and the application has also been filed after several months
seeking extension of time. In the interest of justice, we allow the application
and grant additional three weeks' time to the appellant to file requisite
affidavit under Section 9(3) (b) of the IBC, 2016 from today subject to the
payment deposit of cost of Rs. 25,000/- with Prime Ministers Relief Fund
within the said period.
-3-
The application is disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) sr/nn
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