Alok Kaushik Registered Valuer In The ... vs Mrs Bhuvaneshwari Ramanathan ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 857 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority's dismissal of a claim for further costs, on the ground that the applicant valuer had already been paid Rs. 50,000 and that the application therefore lacked merit, is not to be disturbed on appeal, even though the Adjudicating Authority's observation as to its own jurisdiction is unsupportable, because the outcome rests on the merits of the application and not on jurisdiction.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Alok Kaushik (Registered Valuer in the CIRP of Kavveri Telecom Infrastructure Ltd.) ....Appellant
Vs
Mrs. Bhuvaneshwari Ramanathan (Resolution Professional in Kavveri Telecom Infrastructure Ltd.) & Ors. ....Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Rajendra Beniwal, Mr. Kumar Sumit and Mr. Chirag Gupta, Advocates. Mr. Alok Kaushik, Appellant in person. For Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Gautam, Advocate for R-1&2. Ms. Bhuvaneshwari Ramanathan, RP in person.
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
13.10.2020: After hearing learned counsels for the parties, we find that this
Appellate Tribunal while disposing of Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 207
of 2017 in terms of order dated 18th December, 2019 dismissed application under
Section 7 of the I&B Code thereby setting aside the order of admission passed
by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Bengaluru
Bench in CP(IB) No. 244/BB/2018 and directed the Adjudicating Authority to
decide the fee and cost of the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' as
incurred by the 'Resolution Professional', which was directed to be borne and
paid by the Dena Bank (Financial Creditor).
Cont'd..../ -2-
2. From the impugned order we find that the learned Adjudicating Authority
has dismissed the application in regard to further costs claimed by the Appellant
- Registered Valuer on the ground that such application is not maintainable and
lacks merit. It has been observed in the impugned order that Rs.50,000/- was
paid to each of the Valuers which included the Appellant/ Applicant. Therefore,
notwithstanding the fact that the observation as regards jurisdiction of
Adjudicating Authority is unsupportable, we find that the impugned order
cannot be interfered with as the application before the Adjudicating Authority
lacks merit. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Acting Chairperson
[V. P. Singh] Member (Technical)
[Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) am/gc
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 857 of 2020
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