Ajs Impex Private Limited Through Its ... vs Lalita Santosh Powle In Consortium With ...

IN THE MATTER OF: AJS Impex Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Avil Menezes & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Nipun Singhvi, Mr. Mayur Jugtawat, Mr. Rahul Bhavsar and Mr. Atishay Jain, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. J. Rajesh, Mr. Dhrupad Vaghani, Mr. Jaitegan Singh Khurana and Md. Arsalan Ahmed, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

20.08.2024 : Heard Counsel for the Appellant and Counsel for the

Liquidator.

2. This Appeal has been filed against an Order dated 27.06.2024 passed

by the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal,

Mumbai Bench - IV), by which Resolution Plan has been approved.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that it was the Appellant

who has filed the Section 9 Application against the Corporate Debtor initiating

the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (`CIRP') and the Appellant as per

the Order of the Adjudicating Authority has deposited Rs. 5 Lakhs towards

the cost and fee which has not yet been refunded to the Appellant and there

is no provision in the Plan to treat as CIRP Cost.

4. Learned Counsel for the Liquidator submits that the Committee of

Creditors (`CoC') in its first Meeting held on 09.03.2023 has declined to ratify

the initial CIRP Cost, allow the pocket expenses from the date of start of CIRP

Process till the date of first CoC under Insolvency Resolution Process.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that by email dated

19.06.2023 communication was sent which refer to only Rs. 3.5 Lakhs and

Appellant was intimated that CoC has not been approved the Cost. He

submits that the balance amount required to be paid to the Appellant.

6. The Resolution Plan does not treat the said amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs as

CIRP cost expressively and the CoC had declined to ratify the amount paid by

Appellant, of Rs. 5 Lakhs under the Order of the Adjudicating Authority, the

same cannot be directed to be refunded to the Appellant as prayed in this

Appeal.

7. We, thus, do not find any error in the Order warranting interference.

The Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1580 of 2024 2 of 2