Partly allowed

Sidheshwar Prasad v. M/S Vian Infrastructure Ltd. through Mr Surya Kritichand Thapar, Ex Director & Anr.

Delhi HC6 Feb 2024CO.APP./2/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi allowed the condonation of delay application and disposed of the co-appellant's statutory appeal in insolvency proceedings, granting the appellant one week to submit further original documents to the Official Liquidator for reconsideration. No legal precedent was cited.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay allowed; appeal disposed of with a one-week extension to produce further original documents for re-adjudication.

Sidheshwar Prasad Vs M/S Vian Infrastructure Ltd… — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~29

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Judgment delivered on: 06.02.2024

¶4

CO.APP. 2/2024 & CM APPL. 7004/2024

¶5

SIDHESHWAR PRASAD ..... Appellant

¶6

versus

¶7

M/S VIAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD THROUGH MR SURYA KRITICHAND THAPAR, EX DIRECTOR & ANR ...... Respondents

¶8

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶9

For the Appellant: Mr. Uddhav Pratap and Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Advocates.

¶10

For the Respondent: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Megha Bharana, Advocate for Official Liquidator

¶11

CORAM:-

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶15

CM APPL. 7005/2024 (condonation of delay)

¶16

For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed. Delay is condoned.

¶17

CO.APP. 2/2024 Page 1 of 3

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:0 8.02.2024 16:30:19

¶20

Application is disposed of.

¶21

CO.APP. 2/2024

¶22

Appellant impugns order dated 28.11.2023 whereby the application filed by the appellant being CO. APPL. 1066/2018 has been disposed of holding that since the appellant has already submitted a claim before the Official Liquidator and same has already been adjudicated, the appellant would be at liberty to file a statutory appeal.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator submits that at the time when the impugned order dated 28.11.2023 was passed, the claim of the appellant had been rejected because the appellant had not produced the relevant original documents. She submits that subsequently the Official Liquidator gave another opportunity to all individuals whose claims had been rejected for non filing of original documents. Appellant thereafter produced certain original documents based on which by an order dated 05.02.2024, a claim of appellant for Rs. 1,72,500/- has been admitted.

¶24

Copy of order dated 05.02.2024 is produced and the same is taken on record.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant may also have some more original documents which he could not trace out at that point and he would make an endeavour to trace out further

¶26

CO.APP. 2/2024 Page 2 of 3

¶27

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:0 8.02.2024 16:30:19

¶28

original documents and produce the same before the Official Liquidator.

¶29

In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of giving an opportunity to the appellant to produce such other original documents including receipts that the appellant may have with the Official Liquidator within a period of one week from today.

¶30

In case appellant produces further original documents, the Official Liquidator shall consider the same in accordance with law. In case no further documents are produced by the appellant within one week, appellant would be at liberty to take appropriate remedy, if aggrieved by order dated 05.02.2024 in accordance with law.

¶31

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶32

FEBRUARY 6, 2024 RAVINDER DUDEJA, J ‘ rs’

¶33

CO.APP. 2/2024 Page 3 of 3

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:0 8.02.2024 16:30:19

Sidheshwar Prasad v. M/S Vian Infrastructure Ltd. through Mr Surya Kritichand Thapar, Ex Director & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidheshwar Prasad v. M/S Vian Infrastructure Ltd. through Mr Surya Kritichand Thapar, Ex Director & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Crystal Credit Corporation Ltd. through Its Ex Director Mahesh Pathak Vs Official Liquidator & Anr.

Ganga Tiles through Prop Sunil Kumar Vs Commissioner of Vat & Anr.

Savi Leathers Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ravin Sachdev Proprietor of M/S Seams Vs Union of India and Anr.

Pta Users Association Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gee Dee International Vs Union of India & Anr.