Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd. vs Liquidator Of Lanco Infratech Ltd. & Ors.

The Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.413 of 2023 puts challenge to the Impugned Order dated 10^th July 2023 as it was passed in IA No.819/2021 in CP(IB) No.111/7/HDB/2017. The Appeal is accompanied with IA No.1258/2023, wherein the appellant has sought a condonation of 10 days of delay, which has chanced in refiling the Appeal. Apart from the grounds taken in the Application for refiling, since the issue of refiling is an issue between the Appellant and the Court, a pragmatic view has to be taken. Coupled with the fact that the reason which has been given in Para 4 the delay is not intentional or wanton, on the part of the advocate who is on record in the instant Appeal, since he was based in Ahmedabad there was some delay in co-ordinating with the Counsel for preferring the Appeal for filing before the Registry of this Tribunal. In view of the grounds taken in para 4 in IA No.1258/2023, delay in refiling would stand allowed and the condonation of 10 days of delay, which has chanced in refiling would stand condoned.

The appeal is also accompanied with IANo.1260/2023 where the Appellant has sought condonation of 14 days delay which has chanced in filing the appeal. Apparently as per the records, the Impugned Judgment was rendered on 10^th July 2023 and the period of 30 days would be expiring it on 9^th August 2023, since the Appellant has preferred the appeal by e-filing it on 23^rd August 2023 there has chanced a delay of 14 days in preferring the appeal. Since the period of 14 days of delay would be falling well within the ambit of the proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section 61 and coupled with the reasons which has been given in the IA No.1260/2023, the Condone Delay Application would stand allowed and the delay of 14 days would hereby stand Condoned.

With the consent of the Counsels and the Liquidator in person, the Appeal was heard on merits. The grievance of the appellant as against the Impugned Order dated 10^th July 2023 is limited to the adjudication made to IA No.891/2020 which has been decided by the Learned Adjudicating Authority with the following observations:

The disposal of the said IA in the above manner has taken place with an observation that the same has become infructuous and the basis of recording the same is the consent of both the sides.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant strongly refutes the observation made therein. He submits that they were present before the Court and they have not recorded their consent for disposal of IA No.891/2020 as having being rendered infructuous and in relation thereto, he refers to the pleading he has raised in Para 3.7 in the Memo of Appeal. What he further submits that, if the Impugned Order is taken into consideration coupled with the fact that the presence of Counsel of the Appellant is not disputed by the Liquidator who is present in person today. But no name of the Counsel for the Appellant has been recorded in the Order dated 10^th July 2023 describing presence of Counsels.

But, since it is an aspect of consent of both the sides which could be better appreciated/answered by the Tribunal itself with regards to the consent, for the aforesaid purpose the Order IA No.891/2020 is hereby quashed and the Appellant is permitted to file an appropriate clarification Application before the Tribunal seeking clarification of the Order dated 10^th July 2023, regarding recording of his consent while dismissing his application as having been rendered infructuous. Accordingly, the Company Appeal would stand allowed subject to the above conditions.