Anil Kumar Former Resolution ... vs Satiram Yadav Resolution Applicant Of ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1077 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority's direction that the Registry forward its order to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, in respect of a Resolution Professional's conduct, is not an error where the Resolution Professional had objected to a Resolution Applicant's standing to pursue preferential applications and the observation rests on the facts as they were placed before that authority.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Anil Kumar Former Resolution Professional of JBF - Everest Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Satiram Yadav Resolution Applicant of JBF- Everest Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Rajendra Benwal, Mr. Rajat Kashyap, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Advocate.
ORDER
31.08.2023: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has
been filed against the order dated 01.06.2023 by which order I.A. No. 2877 of
2022 filed by the Resolution Applicant to substitute his name to pursue
preferential applications has been allowed.
2. The Resolution Plan Para 6.10, which has been approved, itself
contemplate the Resolution Application to pursue the application under
Section 43, 45 and 66 of I&B Code. The Adjudicating Authority has allowed
the application. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that aggrieved by
the observation made in the order this Appeal has been filed. Observations are
to the following effect:
"In view of the submissions made by Ld. Counsel appearing for the Resolution Professional, the conduct -2-
of the Resolution Professional should be looked into by the IBBI. The Registry is hereby directed to send a copy of this order to the IBBI."
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the said observations
have been made by the Adjudicating Authority since the Resolution
Professional was objecting the application and filed reply to the said
application after three months and the application delayed for 1 year, due to
which observations have been made.
4. The Adjudicating Authority has noted the submission of the Resolution
Professional that the Resolution Applicant has no locus to file the application
which clearly indicate that the Resolution Professional was objecting the
Resolution Applicant to pursue the preferential applications. We do not find
any error in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and observations
made by the Adjudicating Authority were based on the correct facts.
5. We, thus, do not find any error in the impugned order. Appeal is
dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1077 of 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