Ajit Kumar Resolution Professional ... vs Manasi Wadkar & Ors. Suspended Board Of ...

Mr. Ajit Kumar ...Appellant

Versus

Narayan Ramachandra Ghumatkar & Ors. ...Respondents

Present:

For Appellant : Mr. Shivanshu Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Ajit Kumar, RP in person.

For Respondents : Mr. K.D. Sharma, Advocate for R-1-3.

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

21.07.2022 Heard Mr. Shivanshu Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for

the Appellant as well as Mr. K.D. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The present Appeal under Section 61 of IBC, 2016 has

been filed against an order dated 05.01.2021 to the extent thereby the petition

filed by the Appellant-Resolution Professional in respect of K-Lifestyle &

Industries Limited, Corporate Debtor, against which CIRP was initiated. The

Appellant filed a petition for initiating the Contempt Petition No. 07/2020. It

was complained by the Appellant that despite the fact that suspended

management did not cooperate and provide relevant documents, the

Adjudicating Authority without issuing any stringent direction against the

Corporate Debtor has disposed of the Application. The Contempt Petition No.

07 of 2020 was filed primarily on an allegation of disobedience to an order dated

16.09.2020 passed in I.A. No. 582 of 2020 in CP(IB) No.

625/NCLT/AHM/2018. The Adjudicating Authority, by the said order dated

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 118 of 2021 Page 1 of 3 16.09.2020, had directed the Respondents to cooperate the Resolution

Professional by giving requisite assistance and providing all information and

documents sought by Resolution Professional within seven days without fail,

failing which Notice under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 was to be

issued. The Corporate Debtor stood released from the rigors of CIRP.

2. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that once

direction was issued by the Adjudicating Authority to the Corporate Debtor to

cooperate Resolution Professional, it was necessary on the part of the Corporate

Debtor to provide all the information and materials. Failure to do the same,

was directly putting hindrance in the CIRP. Learned Counsel for the Appellant

further submitted that without taking any action against the Contemnor or

proceeding for punishing the Corporate Debtor, the Adjudicating Authority

gravely erred in disposing of the Contempt Petition without any direction.

3. Mr. K.D. Sharma, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 3 reiterated

that the Appellant had never demanded any information or document from the

present Respondents. However, this contention was contested by the learned

Counsel for the Appellant on the ground that the Notices were issued to all the

suspended Directors. Besides this, learned Counsel for the Respondent has

argued that in relation to the present case, CIRP has already been stayed by a

Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 404 of

2021 by its order dated 14.06.2021. He submits that the Interim Order is still

continuing.

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 118 of 2021 Page 2 of 3

4. Besides hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we have gone through

the records of the case particularly the order which has been assailed by the

Appellant in the present proceeding. On going through the entire order dated

5th January, 2022 passed in Cont. A. No. 07 of 2020 in I.A. No. 582 of 2020 in

C.P. No. 625 of 2018 and on examination of the last paragraph, it is evident

that while disposing the Contempt Proceeding the learned Adjudicating

Authority had also directed the Appellant/Resolution Professional to approach

the local Police and seek their assistance. It appears that without following the

said order the Appellant has directly approached this Tribunal against the

Impugned order. Moreover, the Court is of the opinion that Contempt case

exists in between the Court and Contemnor. Admittedly, the Adjudicating

Authority, who had passed the earlier order, has not entertained the prayer of

the Appellant in Contempt Case No. 7/2020 and as such, there is no reason

for interference with the impugned order of Tribunal.

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. If advised, the Appellant may follow

the direction of the Adjudicating Authority as indicated in the last order.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar] Member (Judicial)

(Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra) Member(Technical) Akc/Gc

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 118 of 2021 Page 3 of 3