AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
I.A. No. 1504 of 2026 This is an Application praying for Condonation of 12 days delay in filing the Appeal.
We find sufficient cause shown in the Application for Condonation of delay.
Delay condoned.
I.A. No 1378 of 2026 This is an Application praying for Condonation of 49 days delay in refiling the Appeal.
Applicant in Paragraph 4 of the Application has given the reason for refilling delay. Sufficient cause has been shown.
Refiling delay condoned.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 392 of 2026 This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 07/11/2025, which is as follows :
“1.This application has been filed by the erstwhile RP of Mr. Raviraj Vikas Takawane, personal guarantor of M/s. Siddheshwar Industries Pvt. Ltd seeking rectification of order dated 08.10.2025 in I.A. 4658/2025 on the ground that an error has occurred in the said order and the order should be rectified to include that: "immediate payment be released by SBI to the applicant Erstwhile RP and PCA as per the bills raised by the PR/PCA in terms of the contractual obligation dt. 06.01.2022 and the proof of these payments be confirmed before the next date of hearing on 21.11.2025.
2.Perused order dated 09.10.2025, which is reproduced below: -
“Issue Notice. Ld. Counsel for SBI is present and accepts notice. Let the reply be filed within 2 weeks. List on 21.11.2025.”
3.We find that there is no typographical error or any other obvious error apparent from the record in the impugned order. Therefore, we are unable to carry out the rectification sought in this application.
4.Accordingly, IA (I.B.C)/5058(MB)/2025 is dismissed.”
The Appellant, appearing in person, submits that order which was pronounced in the open by the court was different and that is why, the Applicant has filed the Application for rectification of the order, which has been rejected.
Ld. Counsel for Respondent submits that Application is still pending and have been fixed for 27/03/2026.
Heard Counsel for the Parties and perused the records. The order which was passed and uploaded has been quoted in Paragraph 2 of the impugned order.
The submission of the Appellant in the Application that order need to be rectified has not been accepted and court has observed that there is no typographical or any other obvious error in the order.
We are of the view that this Appellate court cannot exercise any jurisdiction in accepting the prayer of the Appellant and by allowing the Application, we do not find any error in the order of IA(I.B.C)/5060/MB/2025.
The Appeal is dismissed.
However, it shall be open for the Appellant to press his application, which is pending consideration to the Adjudicating Authority, in accordance with law.