AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
I.A. No. 1165/2026
This is an application praying for condonation of refiling of the appeal.
We find sufficient cause shown in the application for condonation of refiling delay.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection to the refiling delay.
Refiling delay is allowed.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 325/2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent.
This appeal has been filed against an order dated 19.08.2025, by which I.A., appellant has prayed for rectification/clarification of the order dated 12.06.2025. By order dated 12.06.2025, adjudicating authority has passed an order, where directions was granted, by which I.A. Liquidation 7/2024 was disposed of in the terms of the order. Under the said order, time frame was fixed for payment and directions were issued in paragraph xiv, which directions are as follows:
“xiv.In light of the above discussion the following directions are issued :
a. The SRA shall allocate and disburse the requisite amounts for payment to the Applicants/Financial Creditors as per the approved Resolution Plan within four (4) weeks from the date of this order.
b. The SRA and the Monitoring Committee shall submit a compliance Affidavit before this Adjudicating Authority within six (6) weeks regarding the allocation and disbursal of funds along with details of payments made to the Applicants/Financial Creditors as per the approved Resolution Plan.
c. Itis hereby also directed that in the event the SRA fails to implement the approved Resolution Plan, including but not limited to meeting its financial obligations towards the creditors as stipulated in the Resolution Plan, such non-compliance shall be construed as a material breach of the Resolution Plan and appropriate proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, shall be initiated.”
The application has been filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) which has been rejected by the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority noticed the observations made in the order 12.06.2025 and observed that the very same contentions are now been raised in the application, which were already dealt in the order dated 12.06.2025.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant required the Loan Agreement from the financial creditor, when the said arguments were not accepted in the order dated 12.06.2025 there was no occasion to file any rectification application.
The application filed for rectification or clarification of the said order was wholly misconceived and has rightly been dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed.