Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Alt Sahkari Samiti Ltd vs Sandeep Goel

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal16 January 2023Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Adjudicating Authority, having been directed by the Appellate Tribunal to decide a pending application concerning the voting share of a financial creditor, is bound to decide that application before approving any resolution plan or otherwise proceeding to conclude the corporate insolvency resolution process; an extension of the CIRP granted without first deciding that application does not, on the facts here, warrant interference by the Appellate Tribunal, but the Adjudicating Authority must not pass any order on the Resolution Professional's application for approval of the resolution plan until the pending application is decided and consequent directions issued.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 52 of 2023IN THE MATTER OF:

A.L.T. Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

CMA Sandeep Goel & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Advocate Sanchit Garga, Advocate Sameer Rastogi, Advocate Sanya. For Respondent: Advocate Sumit Shukla, for RP

ORDER

16.01.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as

Respondent.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 13.12.2022 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority by which an order for extension of Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP in short) for 30 days was granted on I.A.

No. 6019 of 2022 filed by the Resolution Professional.

3. Appellant being aggrieved by the Order impugned has come up in this

Appeal contending that Appellants are the Financial Creditors whose rights as

a financial creditor were kept in abeyance which Order was challenged in

Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 885 of 2021 and this Tribunal on 16.12.2021

directed that Application I.A. No. 3766 of 2021 filed by the Appellant may be

heard and decided by the Adjudicating Authority at an early date. It is

submitted that the said Application is still pending whereas the voting by the

Committee of Creditors on the Resolution Plan has been completed and the -2-

Resolution Professional has already filed an application for approval of the

Resolution Plan. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the issue

regarding the voting share of the Appellant is to be decided as raised in I.A.

No. 3766 of 2021 and adjudicating authority without deciding the said

application directed to complete the process.

4. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority was required to decide

I.A. No. 3766 of 2021 was as per direction of the Appellate Tribunal dated

16.12.2021 in Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 885 of 2021. In the facts of the

present case, we see no reason to interfere with the Order dated 13.12.2022

as on date. However, the Adjudicating Authority shall not pass any order on

the Application filed by the Resolution Professional for approval of the

Resolution Plan unless I.A. No. 3766 of 2021 is decided and consequent

directions are issued by the Adjudicating Authority accordingly.

With these observations, the Appeal is disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Basant/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 52/2023

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