Request For Repetitive Adjournments By The Appellant : NCLAT Delhi Dismisses Appeal For Non-Prosecution
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar (Judicial Member) and Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member), while adjudicating an appeal filed in Amrit Kumar Patel v Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., has dismissed an appeal for non-prosecution, since the Appellant’s Counsel had sought adjournments on several continuous...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar (Judicial Member) and Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member), while adjudicating an appeal filed in Amrit Kumar Patel v Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., has dismissed an appeal for non-prosecution, since the Appellant’s Counsel had sought adjournments on several continuous dates citing personal difficulty. The Bench held that the Appellant is not interested in pursuing the case.
Background Facts
Amrit Kumar Patel (“Appellant”) filed an appeal before the NCLAT. Initially, the Counsel for the Appellant sought adjournment on 20.01.2023 on the ground of personal difficulty and the Bench adjourned the matter. On 23.03.2023, the Appellant’s Counsel again sought adjournment on the same ground. The Bench deferred the hearing on grounds of personal difficulty. Again on 14.07.2023 and 18.08.2023 the Appellant’s Counsel requested adjournment citing personal difficulty. The proxy counsels were present on behalf of the main counsel. The Respondents vehemently opposed the prayer for adjournment.
“We have also perused the earlier orders. On 20.01.2023, on the ground of personal difficulty of Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, the appeal was adjourned. Again on 23.03.2023, on the same ground adjournment was sought for which was opposed by Ms. Mehrotra, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.1. However, on the ground of personal difficulty we defer the hearing. Thereafter lastly on 14.07.2023 also the case was adjourned on the request made on behalf of the Appellant and today again same stand has been taken.”
The Bench took the view that the Appellant is not interested in pursuing the matter. Accordingly, without going into merits of the case, the Bench dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
“The court is of the opinion that the Appellant appears to be not interested to pursue the matter. However, without going into the merit of the appeal we are proposing to dismiss this appeal due to non-prosecution. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed due to non-prosecution.”
Case Title: Amrit Kumar Patel v Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 605 of 2022
Counsel For Appellant: Mr. Karan Kohli, Mr. Vaibhav Mendiratta, Proxy Counsels.
Counsel For Respondents: Ms. Nidhi Mehrotra, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Advocate for R-2 (IOB).
Click Here To Read/Download Order