1 2026:CGHC:26701 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 733 of 2026 1 - Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd. Through Its Resolution Professional, Mr. Ashutosh Khemani, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Office At Office No. 1-C, 3rd Floor, Shyam Plaza, Pandri, Opp New Bus Stand, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bhilai Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, Having Its Office At M P Housing Board Colony, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 490026 2 - Property Tax Officer Bhilai Municipal Corporation, G.E. Road, Supple, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Pandey & Mr. Pushp Kujmar Gupta, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amrito Das, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.07.02 10:59:26 +0530 2 30/06/2026 Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Durg in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 48/2024, whereby the learned appellate Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the appeal preferred under Section 149 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and, consequently, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the withdrawal of the appeal was neither voluntary nor based upon the informed decision of the petitioner. It is contended that the appeal came to be withdrawn on account of erroneous instructions conveyed through the counsel then representing the petitioner before the learned Principal District Judge. It is further submitted that in view of the subsequent order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, appointing the Interim Resolution Professional, the controversy requires adjudication on merits and, therefore, the order permitting withdrawal deserves to be recalled. 3. It is further contended that to seek restoration of the appeal, the petitioner approached the learned Principal District Judge, Durg by filing an application for recall of the order dated 17.12.2025 (Annexure P/4). However, the said application was neither entertained nor taken on record and was returned without being registered or without any judicial order being passed thereon. It is, therefore, prayed that an appropriate direction be issued to the learned Principal District Judge, Durg to 3 receive the recall application on record and decide the same in accordance with law on its own merits. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondents have no objection if the recall application preferred by the petitioner is taken on record and decided by the learned Principal District Judge, Durg in accordance with law. However, it is clarified that the respondents reserve their right to oppose the application on merits before the competent Court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the limited nature of the controversy involved, this Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner seeks recall of the order dated 17.12.2025 and the respondents have no objection to the recall application being considered on merits, this Court is of the considered opinion that, in the event the petitioner approaches the learned Principal District Judge, Durg by filing appropriate application seeking recall of the order dated 17.12.2025 in MCA No. 48/2024, the learned Principal District Judge shall entertain the said application and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, on its own merits, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge