Venugopal N Dhoot vs Abhijit Guhathakurta & Anr.

10.02.2026: I.A. No. 7155 of 2025: This is an application praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The order impugned dated 23.09.2025 was passed in the order sheet in I.A. No.226 of 2023. The Appellant’s case is that on the date when the order was passed request was made on behalf of the Appellant for adjournment which was communicated in advance to the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent and when case was taken, a request was made to the Court to adjourn the matter. It is submitted that in the order various applications were decided but presence in I.A. No.226 of 2023 is not mentioned. Appellant could not know about the order passed in his application and it come to know about the order when order was uploaded on 31.10.2025, hence, this appeal was filed on 11.11.2025. Learned counsel for the Appellant has relied on order of this Court in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.108 & 109 of 2024 dated 19.01.2024 in Sanjay Pandurang Kalate vs. IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. & Anr.

Learned counsel for the Respondent opposing the submission of learned counsel for the Appellant submits that proxy counsel Mr. Adnan Ansari has been appearing for the Applicant in this application from several earlier dates, which is recorded in the order sheet and the order was pronounced in the Court, hence, there was no explanation for delay.

From the facts brought on the record, especially fact that in I.A. No.226 of 2023 no appearances are mentioned for the counsel and Appellant has filed an Affidavit of the counsel that he made request for adjournment which was not turned down. It is admitted fact that order was passed on order sheet and was subsequently uploaded on 31.10.2025. In facts of the present case, we are of the view that delay in filing the appeal has to be condoned. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. No.7155 of 2025 is disposed of.

This appeal has been filed against order dated 23.09.2025 in I.A. No.226 of 2023. In I.A. No.226 of 2023 order impugned is as follows:

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that on the said date when the I.A. was listed, request was made on behalf of the counsel appearing for the Appellant for adjournment, which was communicated in advance to learned counsel for the Respondent and Court has observed that the said request shall be considered when the matter is heard. It is submitted that the Court never rejected the request for adjournment and the order was passed whereas reply to the I.A. has been filed long back. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the application has not been disposed of and is still pending. It is submitted that said application was listed on several occasions but could not be disposed of. In view of the fact that I.A. No.226 of 2023 is still pending, we are of the view that Adjudicating Authority may consider deciding the application after hearing both the parties, however, the observation made in the order dated 23.09.2025 may not come in way of the disposal of the application I.A. No.226 of 2023, in accordance with law. With above observation, appeal is disposed of.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that application has been subsequently adjourned sine die, which submission is disputed by the Respondent. However, it is not shown that application is disposed of. The application being still pending, the Adjudicating Authority on request of the parties may fix a date for hearing.