SCB Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs XX (NCLAT Delhi)
Summary: The NCLAT Delhi dismissed the appeal against the order dated 19.05.2025 by which the appellant’s application under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance with an earlier direction. The adjudicating authority had, by order dated 23.04.2025, directed the applicant to take steps to serve notice on the creditors by Dasti. The appellant did not take the required steps, and on 19.05.2025 its counsel submitted that the appellant was not in a position to serve the notice through Dasti. The adjudicating authority consequently concluded that the applicant was not interested in pursuing the matter and dismissed the application.
Before the NCLAT, the appellant contended that it had sought time to effect service but that such time had not been granted. The NCLAT declined to accept that submission, observing that the order dated 19.05.2025 clearly recorded the submission made by counsel that the appellant was not in a position to serve notice through Dasti. The Appellate Tribunal held that what happens in Court has to be treated as recorded by the Court and that a party cannot subsequently contend otherwise. The appellant also relied upon an earlier order dated 17.01.2025 recording that an affidavit of service had been filed pursuant to the order dated 06.12.2024.
The NCLAT held that this affidavit was of no avail because the order dated 23.04.2025 requiring service by Dasti was subsequent to that earlier order. Finding no error in the dismissal of the Section 10 application, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE NCLAT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Heard counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 19.05.2025, by which order Section 10 application filed by the appellant has been dismissed for non-prosecution.
3. The order dated 19.05.2025 is as follows:
“IB/518/ND/2023 ORDER
Mr. Shivpartap Singh Thakur, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant is present through VC.
This Tribunal by order dated 23.04.2025 directed the applicant to take steps to serve the notice to the respondent by way of Dasti but till date the said order has not been complied with. Today, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that they are not in position to serve the notice through Dasti. It seems that the applicant is not interested in pursuing the matter, therefore, the present Application is dismissed for non prosecution and non compliance of the order dated 23.04.2025.”
4. Earlier order was passed by the adjudicating authority on 23.04.2025 issuing notice by Dasti to the creditors as mentioned in the list. Appellant did not take any steps to serve and when the matter came on the next date i.e., 19.05.2025, Court passed the order as noted above.
5. Learned counsel or the appellant submitted that appellant prayed for time to affect service which was not granted. The order dated 19.05.2025 clearly mentions that counsel for the appellant submitted that they are not in a position to serve the notice through Dasti. We have no reason to not accept the facts stated in the order. It is well settled that what happens in the Court has to be treated as recorded by the Court, no party can be allowed to make any contention otherwise.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the order dated 17.01.2025, where it has been noticed that applicant in compliance of the order dated 06.12.2024 has placed on record the affidavit of service. The order dated 23.04.2025 was passed subsequent to the order dated 17.01.2025 hence filing of the said affidavit of service is of no avail.
7. We do not find any error in the order dismissing the Section 10 application.
Appeal is dismissed.
