AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal difficulty of the counsel which was neither intentional nor deliberate. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application and thus, the application is allowed and the delay in refiling is hereby condoned. I.A. No. 5945 - 5946 of 2023: These applications are filed for seeking condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 13.09.2023 passed in I.A. No. 136 of 2022 and 9 days in filing the other appeal against the order dated 19.09.2023 passed in I.A No. 4585 of 2021. Notices in the applications were issued. Counsel for the Appellant/Applicant has submitted that the present appeal has been filed against two orders dated 13.09.2023 and 19.09.2023. It is submitted that the Appellant was not intimated by its counsel about the pronouncement of the orders and on 09.10.2023, the officers/representative of the Appellant, on checking the records, came to know about the impugned orders having been passed and thereafter the Appellant took legal advice and filed the present appeal but in this process, the delay has occurred. It is submitted that thus the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, therefore, the same may be condoned. On the oth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 giving opportunity to the Corporate Debtor to explain why such actions as per the agreement be not taken. It is alleged that the Corporate Debtor did not utilise the land for the purpose it was leased out and a letter dated 20.12.2018 was written to the Corporate Debtor to explain why such defaults have continued. 5. The Appellant also initiated proceedings under the Gujarat Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1972 and issued show cause notice dated 04.02.2019. The Corporate Debtor was admitted to the CIRP on 18.11.2020 in CP (IB) No. 571/ND/2020 instituted against it by the Financial Creditor. The Appellant filed its claim in From B for an amount of Rs. 1,806,253,182/- which consists of NU Penalty, Conversion Fees and Revenue Charges. 6. Respondent No. 1 (Zaveri & Co. Pvt. Ltd.) submitted the resolution plan which was approved by the CoC and an application bearing I.A No. 4585 of 2021 was filed by Respondent No. 2 /Rakesh Kumar Agarwal (RP) before the Adjudicating Authority for the approval of the resolution plan under Section 30(6) r/w Section 31 of the Code and Regulation 39(4) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in appeal, cannot decide this kind of an issue which pertains to the proceedings which took place before the Tribunal. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra s. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Ors. (1982) 2 SCC 463. 11. We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 12. Since, we have narrated the facts in detail, therefore, for the sake of brevity we will not give the facts again but it is suffice to say that the Appellant is a Government Corporation, filed the claim of Rs. 1,80,62,53,182/- which was admitted by the RP but the amount proposed as full and final settlement against the same is Rs. 6,14,49,685/-. It is also not in dispute that as soon as the Appellant came to know about the application having been filed by RP for approval of the resolution plan, it had filed an application bearing 136 of 2022 and made a categoric prayer therein for remand of the matter to the CoC for reconsideration keeping in view the status of the leased land as being owned and under the title of the Appellant and to reject the approval of the resolution plan. The said application was l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court upheld the order passed by the Registrar and Revisional Authority, however, on a request made by the Respondents seeking issuance of direction to the appellant for consideration of their request to construct and allot the additional quarter/apartments to them, the same being agreeable to the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant, the Court issued certain directions to the Appellant for construction of additional quarters/apartments and their allotment to the Respondents by the judgment and order dated 25.11.2010. 14. In the said case, it was the case of the Appellant that it had not authorised the Ld. Counsel of the Appellant before the writ court to make any concession in favour of the respondents, therefore, it preferred a review petition. The said review petition was dismissed, therefore, the matter reached up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court where it was argued by Counsel for the Appellant that at no point of time the Appellant had authorised the Counsel for the Appellant to make any concession before the Writ Court and therefore, the Writ Court ought not to have issued any further direction to the Appellant society solely on the basis of a concession made by the lawyer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of State of Maharashtra (Supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the said case, Abdul Rehman Antulay was the Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra till January, 1982. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak an erstwhile member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly made a complaint under the provisions of IPC and prevention of Corruption Act against him. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate refused to entertain the complaint holding that it was not maintainable without the requisite sanction of the Govt. against which R.S. Nayak filed a criminal revision before the Hon'ble High Court. The State of Maharashtra and Shri Antulay were impleaded as Respondents. During the pendency of the criminal revision, Shri Antulay resigned his position as the Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra. The Hon'ble High Court held that sanction was necessary and dismissed the revision application. The High Court noticed that an application had been filed to the Governor of Maharashtra for grant of the requisite sanction and observed that the application should not be decided by the Law Minister or any other Ministers but as it deserves to be decided by the Governor ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges, to call attention of the very judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error. (2) That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an Appellate (I) Per Lord Atkinson in Somasundaran v. Subramanian, A.I.R 1926 P.C. 136. (2) (Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhusudan v. Chanderwati, A.I.R. 1917 P.C. 30. Court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment." 17. This decision in the case of State of Maharashtra (Supra) is in regard to concession having ....