2026 (1) TMI 525

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cial): 1. The Appellant i.e. M/s. Devi Engineering & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. is the Corporate Debtor (CD), in the proceedings of CP (IB) No. 1 / 7 / AMR / 2025. By virtue of an order, which has been passed on 13.06.2025, the right of the Appellant to file Counter was forfeited and the Company Petition was reserved for orders. The said order was sought to be recalled by the Appellant by filing IA (IBC) / 179 / 2025. However, the aforesaid Application for recall was rejected by an order dated 10.07.2025 on the ground that, in a parallel proceedings initiated by an Operational Creditor i.e. M/s. Sidhvi Infrastructure Projects Limited by way of CP (IB) No. 34 / 9 / AMR / 2021, CIRP process has already been directed to be commenced against th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e fixed and accordingly the Ld. Tribunal directed the matter to be placed on 24.03.2025. 5. When the proceedings revived on 24.03.2025, the Corporate Debtor did put in appearance, through the proxy Counsel who was holding brief of the arguing Counsel, and he prayed for grant of three weeks time to file the counter. The same was granted and the matter was next posted for hearing on 23.04.2025. Relevant part of order dated 24.03.2025 is extracted hereunder:- "CP(IB)/1/7/AMR/2025: The Proxy Counsel for the CD appeared and sought three weeks time for filing reply to the main CP. At the request of the CD, three weeks' time is granted for filing the reply after duly serving the copy on the other side. Hence, the matter is lis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....C satisfies the Tribunal on the said discrepancies and that his Counsel misunderstood 13.06.2025 as 30.06.2025 and hence, could not appear for which he cannot be blamed and therefore, his opportunity to file a counter could not have been closed by the order of 13.06.2025. 8. It is seen that a contradictory stand has been taken by the Appellant in the recall application. On one hand, he submits, that a proxy Counsel did appear and sought time for filing of a counter affidavit and on the other hand, he claims that no proper notice was served on him and order was passed in his absence. The order sheets reflect that in two out of four sittings, CD's representative was present. Appellant claims that in three out of four sittings held before t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uance of notice in any judicial proceeding is only to impart knowledge to the opposite party to the proceedings in order to give him an effective opportunity to contest the same. The mode of service becomes an irrelevant issue when the opposite party already has the knowledge and he appears and participates in the proceedings. Participation in the proceedings itself would suffice the object of issuance of a notice in a judicial proceedings. In the present case, when Appellant on several occasions has sought to file the reply / counter affidavit as per his own Recall Application, mode of service cannot be taken as a ground to raise the allegation of not being given opportunity to contest the case. 11. In the instant case, the order of 31.....