The appellant's counsel requested an adjournment but failed to show up due to personal reasons. As no reply was filed by respondents after being afforded the last opportunity, the matter proceeded ex-parte.
Proceedings conducted ex-parte due to absence of appellant's counsel and non-filing of reply by respondents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Regular Appeal No. 253/2016 Date: 19.04.2022
Ashwani Kumar Gambhir Vs. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Present: Shri V. K. Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Sandeep Arora, counsel for the appellant, Shri Anirudh Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, counsel for the respondent-F.I., None for the other respondents,
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the arguing counsel Shri Sandeep Arora is not available today due to some personal reason, therefore, he prays for adjournment.
Perusal of the earlier order dated 24.11.2021 shows that last opportunity was granted to the respondents to file reply, as the appeal relates to the year 2016. The office report dated 18.04.2022 reveals that no reply has been filed by the respondents. Accordingly, let the matter proceed ex-parte.
List this case on 10.08.2022 for hearing.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
VN Giri
Ashwani Kumar Gambhir
Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.
Anr.
R. D. Khare
VN Giri
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
