Alt Sahkari Samiti Ltd vs Sandeep Goel
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 52 of 2023
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
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