Ajit Gy An Chand Jain Liquidator vs Stakeholder Consultation Committee M/ ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1249 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority's refusal to dissolve a corporate debtor under Section 54 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is justified where the liquidator's own case is that the affairs of the corporate debtor have not yet been wound up completely; in such a case the application for dissolution is premature. An appellate tribunal will not interfere with an order of the Adjudicating Authority refusing dissolution where the Adjudicating Authority was not satisfied that dissolution should be allowed and no infirmity is shown in that order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Ajit Gyanchand Jain, Liquidator Vaman Textiles Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Stakeholder Consultation Committee, Vaman Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (Through Punjab National Bank) ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Karan Valecha, Mr. Jaimin R. Dave, Advocates. For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
30.07.2024: I.A. No.4472 of 2024: This is an application praying for
condonation of 15 days' delay in filing the Appeal. Learned counsel for the
Appellant submits that time was taken in obtaining approval of the SCC for
filing the Appeal. Cause shown sufficient, delay is condoned. I.A. No. 4472
of 2024 stands disposed of.
2. This appeal has been filed against order dated 09.04.2024 by which
order the Adjudicating Authority has refused to allow the application filed by
the Liquidator to dissolve the Corporate Debtor. Order dated 09.04.2024
reads as follows:
"ORDER
IA/1006(AHM)2022 & IA/384(AHM)2024
Cont'd.../ 2
This is an application filed under Section 54 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking dissolution of Corporate Debtor.
Further, another IA/725(AHM)2022 is also pending filed ·by the Liquidator against the suspended management under Section 65, 66 & 67 of the IBC, 2016.
However, now an IA/384(AHM)2024 has been filed in the present IA seeking impleading 07 respondents as necessary parties which include the suspended management, Financial Creditor, RTI, Public Information Officer, Sub-Registrar, District Inspector of Land Records- Surat, as CD had only one piece of land which have not been disposed of by the liquidator because the said piece of land is neither identifiable nor traceable despite best efforts of the liquidator.
Since, it is the case of the liquidator itself that the affairs of the CD have yet not been wound up completely, therefore, the IA/1006(AHM)2022 filed for the dissolution of the Corporate Debtor is dismissed being premature and IA/384(AHM)2024 is also dismissed accordingly."
3. The order itself is explanatory. The Adjudicating Authority was not
satisfied that present is a case where dissolution of Corporate Debtor be
allowed. Liquidator's case itself was that the affairs of the CD have yet not
been wound up completely.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1249 of 2024 3
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant sought to contend that the
application filed under Section 19(2) was rejected by the Adjudicating
Authority and the land cannot be identified despite best efforts of the
liquidator and sufficient time had elapsed.
5. Be that as it may. When the Adjudicating Authority is not satisfied that
dissolution of Corporate Debtor be allowed, we do not find any infirmity in the
order of the Adjudicating Authority warranting interference in exercise of our
appellate jurisdiction. Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1249 of 2024
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