SPML INFRA LIMITED Vs. NAVKAR URBANSTRUCTURE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although initially, vide order dated July 18, 2025, affidavits-in-opposition and reply were directed to be filed, subsequently it was recorded in the order dated August 29, 2025 that the respondent does not want to used affidavits and would argue on the basis of the pleadings in the applications, on which premises it was recorded that the matter would be heard without affidavits.

(2.) Since in the absence of affidavit-in-opposition, the averments made in the application for condonation of delay stand uncontroverted, the court takes up the said application on the premise that the averments made therein are correct on facts and proceeds on such premise.

(3.) The recall applicant cites the prolonged illness and the demise of Shri Ramesh Chandra Shah on August 28, 2024, the patriarch of the family and contends that the applicant-Company is a closely held family- Company. Due to said bereavement in the family, the promoter who managed the affairs of the Company, namely Shri Dakshesh Shah, a son of the said deceased, was not in a position to take appropriate steps for contesting the main application under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the 1996 Act") and for filing the subsequent recall application. As such, it is submitted that the respondent/recall applicant could not appear or be represented before this Court on the relevant date when the order under recall was passed on September 18, 2024 and even thereafter could not take any legal step to challenge the same.