Amit Gupta, Rp Of Unimark Remedies Ltd vs Corporation Bank & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1078 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Adjudicating Authority Bench is split and the members have passed dissenting orders, the matter must be referred to a third Member, and the Resolution Professional may bring the non-referral to the notice of the Bench concerned and, if necessary, of the President of the National Company Law Tribunal, who may pass an appropriate order placing the matter before the third Member. Where the Adjudicating Authority's split order has left the questions of legality and propriety of the order and of the adverse remarks against the Resolution Professional undecided, those questions are not determined by the Appellate Tribunal in an appeal disposed of on this basis, but are left open for determination by the third Member and, if required, by the Appellate Tribunal later.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1078 of 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Amit Gupta, RP of Unimark Remedies Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Corporation Bank & anr. ...Respondent Present: For Appellant : Ms. Pooja Mahajan and Ms. Avni Shrivastav, Advocates
ORDER
17.10.2019 The Appellant - 'Resolution Professional' has preferred this
appeal against the split order dated 30th August, 2019 delivered on 11th
September, 2019 and the said matter has arises out of the 'Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process' initiated against 'Unimark Remedies Ltd.' (Corporate
Debtor).
The case of the Appellant is that the 'Resolution Professional' has filed the
'resolution plan' as approved by the 'Committee of Creditors' with 72.25% of the
voting share. However, in the meantime, one dissenting 'Financial Creditor'
raised question as to valuation. While one of the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) by
impugned order ask for fresh valuation but the other Hon'ble Member (Technical)
dissented by separate order (page 68). It is submitted that thereafter none of the
Hon'ble Member has referred the matter to the President, National Company Law
Tribunal for referring the matter to the third Hon'ble Member.
In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that 'Resolution
Professional' should bring this fact to the notice of the said Bench of the -2-
Adjudicating Authority comprising of the same Members i.e. Mr. Bhaskara
Pantula Mohan, Member (J) and Mr. V. Nallasenapathy, Member (Technical) who
will take steps to refer the matter to the third Member in accordance with law
and if so required, after necessary permission of the Hon'ble President, National
Company Law Tribunal. The 'Resolution Professional' will also bring this fact to
the notice of the President, National Company Law Tribunal who may pass the
appropriate order to place the matter before the third Member.
In view of the fact that there is a dissenting order passed by the two
Members, we are not considering the question of legality and proprietary of the
order or the adverse remarks passed against the 'Resolution Professional', which
is left open for determination by the 3rd Hon'ble Member and if so required later
it may be decided by this Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice A.I.S. Cheema ] Member (Judicial)
[ Kanthi Narahari ] Member (Technical) /ns/gc Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1078 of 2019
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