Chhattisgarh High Court
ARBAP/8/2019 of GUANGZHOU GREEN SCINECE ENERGY TREATMENT ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY COMPANY LIMITED Vs SKS POWER GENERATION (CHHATTISGARH) LIMITED on 2 September 2026
2026:CGHC:39101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBAP No. 8 of 2019 1 - Guangzhou Green Science Energy Treatment Engineering And Technology Company Limited 1809, International Sourcing Center, No. 8, East Pazhou Avenue, Guangzhou, China 510335, Through Its Attorney Holder Mr.
CGHC010184702019
2026:CGHC:39101
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ARBAP No. 8 of 2019
1 - Guangzhou Green Science Energy Treatment Engineering And Technology Company Limited 1809, International Sourcing Center, No. 8, East Pazhou Avenue, Guangzhou, China 510335, Through Its Attorney Holder Mr. Guneet Choudhary, House No. 225, Sector-12 Panchkula, Haryana India- 134112
... Appellant
versus
1 - SKS Power Generation (Chhattisgarh) Limited B- 501, Elegant Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road, J.B.Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai, India 400059, Through Its Executive Director Mr.R.K. Agrawal Power Plants/ Proprietor At Village Binijkote, Daramurra, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 496 001
---- Respondent
For Appellant
:
None
For Respondent
:
Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate
Division Bench
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu &
Hon'ble Shri Justice
Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
03.09.2026
Per
Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. None for the appellant even when the case is taken up for hearing in the second round.
2. Earlier, counsel for the appellant pleaded no instructions, therefore, the case was listed on 25.08.2026, but on the said date, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant.
3. On 12.08.2026, learned counsel for the respondent has made submission that Resolution plan has been submitted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and it was approved by the National Company Law Tribulal (NCLT). The order of the NCLT was affirmed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. On the said date, he sought time to place on record the documents in this regard. He has filed an application for taking additional documents on record as also the objection supported with an affidavit.
4. During the course of arguments, he referred the order passed by the NCLT dated 13th August, 2024 and submits that in the proceedings before the NCLT also, pendency of the Arbitration petition before this Court was brought to the knowledge by way of filing interim application, which was, however, rejected and therefore, no relief as claimed for could be granted.
5. In the aforementioned facts of the case, as there is no representation on behalf of the appellant since last two dates, we are left with no other option except to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Judge sunita