Jayesh Sanghrajka vs The Commissioner of Custom and… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2025)

Jayesh Sanghrajka vs The Commissioner of Custom and… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay in filing the Interim Application condoned; order dated 8 June 2023 dismissing Central Excise Appeal No. 83 of 2018 for want of prosecution set aside; Appeal restored to the file of this Court, subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- within two weeks by RTGS to The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai; failing payment, the Interim Application stands dismissed without further reference.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the Interim Application seeking restoration of Central Excise Appeal No. 83 of 2018 (which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 8 June 2023, the Application being filed on 11 October 2024) ought to be condoned and the Appeal restored to the file of the Court. +1 more

Court's answer

Though the Court was not fully satisfied with the explanation given for the delay, it condoned the delay so as to ensure that the Applicant is not denied an opportunity to agitate his grievances on merits.

Ratio / Principle

The delay is condoned, the order dated 8 June 2023 dismissing the Appeal for want of prosecution is set aside, and the Appeal is restored to the file of this Court, subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- within two weeks by RTGS to The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai.

Key takeaways

If the costs of Rs.25,000/- are not paid within the stipulated period of two weeks, the Interim Application shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Coram: B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ. — Interim Application No. 3778 of 2024 in Central Excise Appeal No. 83 of 2018 (Jayesh Sanghrajka v. The Commissioner of Custom and Excise, Mumbai III), decided 2 May 2025: The Applicant, the Resolution Professional of the Company, sought restoration of the Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution on 8 June 2023 and condonation of the delay in filing the Application on 11 October 2024. Explanation offered: the erstwhile advocates missed the listing through inadvertent oversight while a moratorium under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 subsisted, and the Applicant, as Resolution Professional, was handling numerous claims and litigation matters of the Company; the Appeal was also pressed to be heard on merits since, despite a successful resolution (Resolution Plan approved 9 August 2024), the Excise Authorities were said to be acting contrary to the approved Resolution Plan. Held: though not fully satisfied with the explanation for the delay, the Court condoned the delay so as not to deny the Applicant an opportunity to agitate his grievances on merits, set aside the dismissal order dated 8 June 2023 and restored the Appeal, subject to costs of Rs.25,000/- payable within two weeks by RTGS to The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai; on failure to pay, the Interim Application stands dismissed without further reference. On the Court's query regarding locus of the Resolution Professional post-approval of the Resolution Plan (functus officio), counsel submitted that the new management had authorised him to make the application and prosecute the Appeal, he being Chairman of the Monitoring Committee. Interim Application disposed of accordingly.

12 ia3778-24.doc

Digitally signed by TRUSHA TRUSHA TUSHAR TUSHAR MOHITE MOHITE Date: 2025.05.05 18:05:35 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3778 OF 2024 IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.83 OF 2018

Jayesh Sanghrajka .. Applicant

Versus

The Commissioner of Custom and Excise, Mumbai III .. Respondent

Mr.Shyam Kapadia a/w Mr.Gaurav Suryavanshi i/b M/s.ANM Global, Advocate for the Applicant.

Mr.Ram Ochani a/w Mr.Suman Kumar Das, Advocate for Respondents.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: MAY 02, 2025

P. C.

The above Interim Application is filed seeking to restore the above Appeal which was dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 8^th June 2023. A prayer is also made to condone the delay in filing this Application as the same is filed on 11^th October 2024.

Mohite

Page 1 of 4 MAY 02, 2025

12 ia3778-24.doc

The explanation given for the delay is basically that the erstwhile Advocates of the Applicant were unable to appear before this Court on 8^th June 2023, due to an inadvertent oversight in tracking the case listing. According to the Applicant, it was not expecting the captioned Appeal to be listed since a moratorium under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was still in effect, and the Applicant was handling an overwhelming number of claims and managing a substantial volume of litigation matters of the Company, for which, the Applicant was appointed as the Resolution Professional. This led to an unintentional oversight and the matter was dismissed when called out on 8^th June 2023. It is in these circumstances that the Applicant requests that the above Appeal be restored and be heard on merits especially since notwithstanding a successful resolution, the Excise Authorities are seeking to act contrary to the Resolution Plan approved on 9^th August 2024.

When we asked Mr.Kapadia, as to how the Resolution Professional would have locus to prosecute this Appeal since he would have become functus officio after the approval of the Resolution Plan, he submitted that the new management of the Company has authorised the Resolution Professional not only to make the present Application but also to

Page 2 of 4 MAY 02, 2025

Mohite

12 ia3778-24.doc

prosecute the above Appeal, since he is the Chairman of the Monitoring Committee.

Having heard Mr.Kapadia, as well as the learned A.G.P., though we are not fully satisfied with the explanation given for the delay in order to ensure that the Applicant is not denied an opportunity to agitate his grievances on merits, we hereby condone the delay and set aside the order dated 8^th June 2023. Consequently, we hereby restore the above Appeal to the file of this Court. All this is of course subject to cost of Rs.25,000/- being paid within a period of two weeks from today by RTGS to The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai.

Bank Account Details :

Account Name : The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai. Bank Name : Bank of India Branch : Mumbai Main A/c. No. : 000120110001337 IFSC Code : BKID0000001

Page 3 of 4 MAY 02, 2025

Mohite

12 ia3778-24.doc

It is needless to clarify that if the costs are not paid within the stipulated period, the above Interim Application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.

Interim Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

Page 4 of 4 MAY 02, 2025

Mohite