Akhilesh Kumar Gupta vs Advaya Traders
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 919 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning rests on two propositions, both drawn from the Adjudicating Authority's order it affirmed: an application by a liquidator under Section 25(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking recovery of money due to the corporate debtor, is not maintainable under that provision, and the liquidator remains free to pursue recovery through other steps available in law. The imposition of costs was set aside on the ground that the case did not warrant a costs order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Akhilesh Kumar Gupta ...Appellant
Versus Advaya Traders & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Rishi Sood and Mr. Tushar Rathi, Advocates. For Respondents:
ORDER
12.08.2022: Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has been
filed against the order dated 23.05.2022 passed by Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench -II) by which order, Ld.
Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the CA No. 1532 of 2019 in Company
Petition (IB) No. 794/ND/2018. Adjudicating Authority while dismissing the
Application has also imposed cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the Appellant.
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that Application which was filed
by the Liquidator under Section 25(2) of the IBC, 2016 was with object of
recovery of money which was due to the Corporate Debtor for maximizing the
assets of the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority has given reasons
in the order after considering all submissions and have rightly concluded that
Application under Section 25 was not maintainable. Adjudicating Authority has
further observed that it was open for the liquidator to take immediate steps in -2-
accordance with provisions of law for recovery of the amounts which are
due and payable by the Respondent to the Corporate Debtor.
We thus do not find any error in the order passed by the Adjudicating
Authority rejecting the application CA No. 1532 of 2019. We however, are of the
view that present was not a case in which cost of Rs. 50,000/- was to be
imposed. We delete the imposition of cost Rs. 50,000/- in the impugned order
dated 23.05.2022. Rest of the order is not interfered with. The Appeal is
disposed of as above.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice Rakesh Kumar] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical)
sr/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 919 of 2022
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