OSA(CAD).SR/60375/2024 of CATALYST TRUSTEESHIP LIMITED Vs 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED on 28 October 2026

1. 63 Moons Technologies Limited (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LTD, Rep.by its Authorized Signatory Mr.D.Jehn Dheepak, having its registered office at Sakthi Tower-1, 7th Floor, E-766, Anna Salai, Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 002

2. M/s. Wadhwan Global Capital Limited Ground Floor, Madhava Building, Near Family Court, Bandra (East) Mumbai 400 051 also at 10th Floor, TCG Financial Center, BKC Road, Mumbai 400 098

3. Kapil Rejeshkumar Wadhawan FORMER CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR DHFL, at the relevant time, office at Warden House, 2nd floor, Sir PM Road, Fort, Mumbai residing at 22/23, Sea view Palace, Pali Hill, Bandra (West) Mumbai

4. Dheeraj Rajeshkumar Wadhawan Former Director, DHFL at the relevant time, having office at Warden House, 2nd floor, Sir

PM Road, Fort, Mumbai residing at 22/23, Sea view Palace, Pali Hill, Bandra (West) Mumbai

5. Harshil Mehta Former CEO, DHFL, Warden House, 2nd Floor, Sir P M Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001.

6. Santosh Sharma Former Chief Financial Officer, DHFL, Warden House, 2nd Floor, Sir P M Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001.

7. M/s. Credit Analysis and Research Ltd., No.O-509/C, Spencer Plaza, 5th Floor, No.769, Anna Salai, Ch - 2.

8. M/s. Brickworks Ratings India Pvt Ltd., 2nd Floor,B Wing, Swelect House, No 5, Sir P.S Sivasamy Salai, Mylapore, Ch - 4.

9. M/s. Chaturvedi and Shah Chartered Accountants, A partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act 1932, 714 - 715, Tulsiani Chambers, 212, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021.

10. M/s. T.R. Chadha and Co.LLP 50, 5 th Floor, Mount Chambers, 758, Anna Salai, Chennai 2.

11. M/s. Rajendra Neeti and Assocaites A partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act,1932. 144, Jolly Maker Chamber II, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021.

12. M/s. Union Bank of India No.29, Sardar Patel Road, 1st Floor, Adyar, Ch

- 20.

13. M/s. Doit Talent Ventures (India) Pvt Ltd., 15 Floor Tower 2A, One Indiabulls Centre S B

Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013.

14. M/s. Sunbling Real Estate Pvt Ltd., 502, Madhava, Plot No.C-4, E Block, BKC, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051..

15. M/s RKW Developers Pvt Ltd., HDIL Towers, 4th Floor, Anand Kanekar Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051. ..Respondent(s) OSA(CAD) SR No. 60375 of 2024 CNR:{HCMA010847012024} Catalyst Trusteeship Limited ..Petitioner (s) Vs 63 Moons Technologies Limited ..Respondent(s)

Catalyst Trusteeship Limited (Formerly GDA Trusteeship Ltd.), Ganapathy Colony III Street, Teynampet, Ch - 18. ..Petitioner (s) Vs

1. 63 Moons Technologies Limited (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LTD, Rep.by its Authorized Signatory Mr.D.Jehn Dheepak, having its registered office at Sakthi Tower-1, 7th Floor, E-766, Anna Salai, Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 002

2. M/s. Wadhwan Global Capital Limited Ground Floor, Madhava Building, Near Family Court, Bandra (East) Mumbai 400 051 also at 10th Floor, TCG Financial Center, BKC Road, Mumbai 400 098

3. Kapil Rejeshkumar Wadhawan FORMER CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR DHFL, at the relevant time, office at Warden House, 2nd floor, Sir PM Road, Fort, Mumbai residing at 22/23, Sea view Palace, Pali Hill, Bandra (West) Mumbai

4. Dheeraj Rajeshkumar Wadhawan Former Director, DHFL at the relevant time, having office at Warden House, 2nd floor, Sir PM Road, Fort, Mumbai residing at 22/23, Sea view Palace, Pali Hill, Bandra (West) Mumbai

5. Harshil Mehta Former CEO, DHFL, Warden House, 2nd Floor, Sir P M Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001.

6. Santosh Sharma Former Chief Financial Officer, DHFL, Warden House, 2nd Floor, Sir P M Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001.

7. M/s. Credit Analysis and Research Ltd., No.O-509/C, Spencer Plaza, 5th Floor, No.769, Anna Salai, Ch - 2.

8. M/s. Brickworks Ratings India Pvt Ltd., 2nd Floor,B Wing, Swelect House, No 5, Sir P.S Sivasamy Salai, Mylapore, Ch - 4.

9. M/s. Chaturvedi and Shah Chartered Accountants, A partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act 1932, 714 - 715, Tulsiani Chambers, 212, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021.

10. M/s. T.R. Chadha and Co.LLP 50, 5 th Floor, Mount Chambers, 758, Anna Salai, Chennai 2.

11. M/s. Rajendra Neeti and Assocaites A partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act,1932. 144, Jolly Maker Chamber II, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021.

12. M/s. Union Bank of India No.29, Sardar Patel Road, 1st Floor, Adyar, Ch

- 20.

13. M/s. Doit Talent Ventures (India) Pvt Ltd., 15 Floor Tower 2A, One Indiabulls Centre S B Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013.

14. M/s. Sunbling Real Estate Pvt Ltd., 502, Madhava, Plot No.C-4, E Block, BKC, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051..

15. M/s RKW Developers Pvt Ltd., HDIL Towers, 4th Floor, Anand Kanekar Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051. ..Respondent(s) OSA(CAD) SR No. 72156 of 2024 CNR:{HCMA011024432024} Catalyst Trusteeship Limited ..Petitioner (s) Vs 63 Moons Technologies Limited ..Respondent(s) CMP No. 14020 of 2024 has been filed to condone the delay of 442 days in filing appeal against the common order dated 1.2.2023 passed in A No.1433 of 2020 in CS (Comm) No.154 of 2020. CMP No. 14028 of 2024 has been filed to condone the delay of 442 days in filing appeal against the common order dated 1.2.2023 passed in OA No.230 of

2020 in CS (Comm) No.154 of 2020 OSA.(CAD).SR.No.60375 of 2024 has been filed under Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 of OS Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 01.02.2023 in O.A.No.230 of 2020 in CS(Comm).No.154 of 2020 OSA.(CAD).SR.No.72156 of 2024 has been filed under Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 of OS Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 01.02.2023 in A.No.1433 of 2020 in CS(Comm).No.154 of 2020 In both CMPs For Petitioner(s): Mr.Srinivasan M.D. For Respondent(s): Mr.Nithyaesh R.Nataraj for M/s.Vaibhav R.Venkatesh for R1 Ms.Madhupreetha Elango for R7 Mr.Adarash Subramanian for R9 Mr.Rahul Balaji for R10

COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) These petitions have been filed to condone the delay in filing the appeals against the common order dated 01.02.2023 passed in A No.1433 of 2020 and O.A.No.230 of 2020 in CS (Comm) No.154 of 2020.

2. The reasons assigned in these petitions is to the effect that they have entered appearance on 04.08.2020 through their erstwhile counsel, however, the counsel has not filed counter and the further proceedings have not been informed to them, therefore, there was a huge delay and only when the new counsel filed application to receive the copy of all the documents in the case, they came to know about the order. Hence, such delay.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton, due to the erstwhile counsel inaction the delay has occurred, therefore, seeks for allowing these petitions.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1, 7, 9 and 10 and perused the materials placed on record.

5. Though sufficient cause normally receives a liberal approach to advance substantial justice, the fact remains that for such a liberal approach to be taken, there must be justified reasons assigned in the affidavit and there must be some materials to show that the delay is actually beyond the control of the party. The very allegations in the affidavit itself indicate that having entrusted the matter to the counsel in the year 2020, the petitioner has not followed the case properly. We are of the view that merely entrusting the matter to the lawyer, the job of the litigant will not be over, litigation should diligently follow the case and now, it has become fashion to accuse the counsel for any delay. It is for the litigant to follow the case diligently and make enquiry then and there with the counsel, therefore, merely entrusting the matter to the counsel will not absolve the litigant of the responsibility. Hence, this Court is not satisfied with the reasons assigned. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salil Dutta vs T.M. & M.C. Private Ltd., reported in (1993) 2 SCC 185 has held as follows: “8. The advocate is the agent of the party. His acts and statements, made within the limits of authority given to him, are the acts and statements of the principal i.e. the party who engage him. It is true

that in certain situations, the court may, in the interest of justice, set aside a dismissal order or an ex parte decree notwithstanding the negligence and/or misdemeanour of the advocate where it finds that the client was an innocent litigant but there is no such absolute rule that a party can disown its advocate at any time and seek relief. No such absolute immunity can be recognized. Such an absolute rule would make the working of the system extremely difficult. The observations made in Rafiq [(1981) 2 SCC 788 : AIR 19821 SC 1400] must not be understood as an absolute proposition. As we have mentioned hereinabove, this was an on- going suit posted for final hearing after a lapse of seven years of its institution. It was not a second appeal filed by a villager residing away from the city, where the court is located. The defendant is also not a rustic ignorant villager but a private limited company with its head office at Calcutta itself and managed by educated businessmen who know where their interest lies. It is evident that when their applications were not deposed of before taking up the suit for final hearing they felt piqued and refused to appear before the court. May be, it was part of their delaying tactics as alleged by the plaintiff. May be not. But one thing is clear they chose to non- cooperate with the court. Having adopted such a stand towards the court, the defendant has no right to ask its indulgence. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted.” (Emphasis supplied)

6. Furthermore, the affidavit itself indicate that the earlier counsel had contacted that petitioner on 21.01.2021 and informed that the matter would be listed on 10.02.2021 and thereafter, impugned order has been passed after two years, i.e., on 01.02.2023; even then the petitioner has not followed the case properly, therefore, we are of the view that the reckless allegations against the counsel without any substance cannot be accepted and the delay cannot be condoned as a matter of right.

7. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any merits in these petitions and these petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the original side appeals stand rejected. No costs. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 28-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dhk

N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR J. dhk CMP No. 14020 of 2024 AND OSA(CAD) SR NO. 60375 OF 2024,CMP NO. 14028 OF 2024,OSA(CAD) SR NO. 72156 OF 2024 28-10-2026