Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
UTTER PRADESH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (UPSIDA) vs ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY INDIA LIMITED on 1 September 2026
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI
Present: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, Chairperson Regular Appeal No. 27/2024
Between
Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA)
… Appellant/s
V/s.
Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd.
…Respondent/s
Present as under:
Mr. Tejas Girap, i/b Mr. Vivek Phadke, Counsel for Appellant.
Mr. Bhalchandra Palav, i/b M/s. Bhal & Co., Counsel for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Ronak Doshi, Counsel for Respondent No. 2 appeared through VC.
Ms. Barsha Parulekar, Counsel for Respondent No.2 Official Liquidator.
Mr. Vivek Patil, Counsel for Respondent No.4.
Mr. Rajesh Nagory, i/b Ms. Sanjana Ghogare, Counsel for Respondent No.5.
AND
Regular Appeal No. 33/2024
Between
Authum Investment & Infrastructure Ltd.
… Appellant/s
V/s.
Shakuntalam Landcraft Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
…Respondent/s
-: Order dated: 01/09/2026: -
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. Present as under:
Mr. Vivek Patil, Counsel for Appellant. Mr. Rajesh Nagory, i/b Ms. Sanjana Ghogare, Counsel for Respondent
No.1. Ms. Barsha Parulekar, Counsel for Respondent No.2 Official Liquidator. Mr. Bhalchandra Palav, i/b M/s. Bhal & Co., Counsel for Respondent No.3. Mr. Ronak Doshi, Counsel for Respondent No. 4 appeared through VC. Mr. Tejas Girap, i/b Mr. Vivek Phadke, Counsel for Respondent No.5.
2. The matter is taken up for hearing by way of praecipe filed by the Respondent No.5/Shakuntalam Landcraft Pvt. Ltd. in Regular Appeal No.27/2024 for speaking to the minutes.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5/Shakuntalam Landcraft Pvt. Ltd. would submit that in the order/judgment dated 28.08.2026 passed by this Appellate Tribunal, there are certain inadvertent clerical/typographical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions. He would further point out following mistakes/errors requiring correction. Sr. No. Para No. Details Mentioned Correction required
The impugned order date is mentioned as 24.01.2026. It should be 24.04.2023
The date of auction is mentioned as 28.08.202 It should be 28.08.2023
It is stated as a bid was made by “the Appellant” It should be Shakuntalam Landcraft Pvt. Ltd./R-5.
The sale certificate date is The sale certificate date
mentioned as 01.05.23024 should be 01.05.2024
In the second paragraph, the date of the impugned order is mentioned as 24.04.2026 It should be 24.04.2024
The date of the impugned order is mentioned as 24.04.2026 It should be 24.04.2024
4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the other Respondents present would submit that the mistakes/errors pointed out are clerical/typographical in nature, therefore, the same may be corrected.
5. It would not be out of place to note here that Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 says that the Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.
6. In the considered view of this Appellate Tribunal, the errors pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5/Shakuntalam Landcraft Pvt. Ltd. are clerical/typographical in nature and accordingly, the same are hereby corrected by this order.
7. The Private Secretary is directed to carry out the aforesaid corrections and upload the corrected order/judgment on the website. Sd/- Chairperson Psa-22