An appeal against the dismissal of an application challenging an ex-parte order will not be entertained if the original pleadings do not support the grounds subsequently raised (such as Section 65 of the IBC) and the court finds the deemed service of notice to be valid.

O R D E R

(Hybrid Mode)

26.05.2026:

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.04.2026 passed in I.A. No.289 of 2017. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has dismissed the application. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that although the application was heard on several occasions but it has been dismissed without considering various averments made therein.

2. In the application I.A. No.289 of 2017, the prayers were made where the Appellant/ Applicant has made grievances with regard to ex-parte order dated 12.04.2017 by which application under Section 9 was admitted. The prayers which are in the application indicate that challenge was confined by the applicant that he was not served and no opportunity was granted. The said application was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority holding that notice was issued, the Appellant will be deemed to be validly served.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant sought to contend that he has already made pleading within meaning of Section 65 of IBC and affidavit was filed thereafter.

4. A perusal of various pleadings in the application indicate that allegation were not in respect to Section 65 of the IBC. We, thus, are of the view that order rejecting the application cannot be faulted with.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent also submitted that there has been an order by this Tribunal in the year 2020 to consider application for liquidation, which is pending for last more than 5 years and not yet been decided.

6. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that it is not the Appellant who has to be blamed for non-decision of liquidation application.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submitted that there are other applications filed against the Appellant which are pending.

8. Be that as it may. We see no reason to entertain this appeal. As far as prayer of the Appellant that his allegations under Section 65 need to be considered, it is always open for the parties to file application under Section 65 during pendency of the proceeding. With this observation, we dismiss the appeal.

9. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the allegations of either of the parties.