AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Oral Judgment: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)
In Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.95/2025, the Appellant puts a challenge to the impugned order dated 29.01.2025, as passed on IA No.1411/2024, preferred in CP (IB) No.77/7/HDB/2022, passed by the Ld. NCLT, Hyderabad, on the ground that, the said impugned order happens to be contemptuous, to the stay order granted by this Appellate Tribunal on 10.10.2023, that was passed in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.310/2023. The said order of 10.10.2023 carried the word “certain issues”. The observation made in the order was clarified by us by an order passed on 13.10.2025.
In that eventuality, the ambiguity, which allegedly prevailed in the stay order of 10.10.2023, since has been clarified by an order dated 13.10.2025. The very purpose of filing IA (IBC) No.1411/2024, would become infructuous because the Interim Order dated 10.10.2023 had already been modified by order dated 13.10.2025, and no cause to continue with the instant company appeal survives.
In view of the fact that, the earlier order, which we granted on 10.10.2023 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.310/2023, was later on clarified by us, by an order passed by us on 13.10.2025, it has to be held that the very purpose of the instant company appeal, putting a question to the impugned order dated 29.01.2025, has been rendered infructuous.
In view of the aforesaid, this company appeal would stand ‘closed’, as no purpose would be solved in the light of the clarification already granted by us on 13.10.2025. Hence, this company appeal would stand ‘closed’.