AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 196 wordsThis petition was ready for hearing and at that stage the then counsel for the petitioner informed this Tribunal that he cannot represent the company
because an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) has been appointed for the petitioner company vide order of NCLT, Ahemdabad dated 2.6.2020.Â
The name and address of the IRP was recorded in the order of 13.12.2021 and notice was issued which was validly served on 28.12.2021 but nobody
appeared to represent the IRP/petitioner company on 12.1.2022. The matter was adjourned for today only in the interest of justice but it was
indicated that if there is no effective representation on behalf of the petitioner company by today, appropriate orders may be passed for final disposal
of the petition.
Today also we have heard the earlier counsel for the petitioner company and he submits that he has no instructions from IRP to represent the
petitioner company. We have also heard Mr. Dhruv Tamta, learned counsel for the respondent.
In the facts noted above there is no option but to dismiss the petition along with pending application, if any for lack of prosecution. The petition is
dismissed accordingly but without any order as to costs.