Abhimanyu Mittal vs Respondent
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1610 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority's general observations, which request the IBBI to consider measures requiring Resolution Professionals and Liquidators to appear personally before the Court, and which contemplate guidelines or a circular rather than any direction against a named professional, do not constitute an order against the appellant individually and therefore do not give rise to an appealable grievance; accordingly, an appeal against such observations is not entertained and is disposed of.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Abhimanyu Mittal ...Appellant
Versus
--- ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Jain and Mr. Aashish Sethi, Advocates
For Respondent : None
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
19.12.2023 There is a delay of 13 days in filing the appeal. Learned
Counsel for the appellant submits that delay was caused as the issue was
being deliberated and there was vacation also. Cause shown is sufficient,
delay is condoned.
This appeal has been filed by the Resolution Professional challenging
the order dated 11.10.2023 which is to the following effect:
"Mr. Ashish Sethi, Proxy Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Saurabh Jain, Learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional seeks an adjournment.
We have observed that in many cases, the Resolution Professional or the Liquidator do not appear to assist the Court. Even in application for taking on progress Report etc. We, therefore, request the IBBI to look into the matter and take appropriate measures in such cases, so that the Resolution Professional or the Liquidator as the case may be appear in person and assist the Court for ensuring proper assistance and to avoid any delay in adjudicating the matters. The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to IBBI. List the matter on 07.11.2023."
When we look into the order, it is clear that the Adjudicating Authority
did not direct the IBBI to take any proceeding against the Appellant. Rather
observation was that IBBI to look into the matter and take appropriate
measure in such cases so that RP and Liquidator, as the case may be, appear
in person analysis the Court.
The observations were general in nature with intent to framing some
guidelines or circular by the IBBI and no direction was issued against the
Appellant individually. We thus are of the view that there is no reason to
entertain the appeal. With these observations we dispose of the Appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) pks/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1610 of 2023 2 of 2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free