Anil Kumar Mittal vs Atul Agnihotri And Anr
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1937 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellate tribunal's reasoning rests on the proposition that where the Adjudicating Authority has already made a direction, a fresh application seeking the same compliance is not maintainable, since all orders of the Tribunal must be complied with; the proper course for a party aggrieved by non-compliance is to take such steps as are available in law rather than to re-agitate the same relief by a new application.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Anil Kumar Mittal, ...Appellant(s) RP, Bhupesh Steel Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
Atul Agnihotri & Anr. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Nishant Awana, Mr. G.S. Awana, Ms. Parul Yadav, Advocates. Mr. Anil Mittal, RP. For Respondents :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 12.11.2024: IA No. 7174 of 2024 This is an application praying for condonation of 9 days' delay in filing
the appeal. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the appeal has been
filed by Resolution Professional who was required to take approval of the
CoC for filing the appeal and the legal opinion was also obtained from the
Counsel which took time. Sufficient cause has been shown for condonation
of 9 days delay. Delay condoned.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1937 of 2024
Heard Counsel for the Appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.08.2024 passed
by Adjudicating Authority in IA -3991/2024. The Adjudicating Authority has
earlier passed an order on 14.06.2024 directing the Respondent No. 1 to
make available books of account and tally data to the Resolution
Professional within two weeks. When the appropriate documents, data were
not provided the Resolution Professional filed another application IA-
3991/2024 on which the following order was passed by Adjudicating
Authority on 21.08.2024:
"New IA -3991/2024:-
This application has been filed seeking the following prayers:-
Direct the Respondents No. 1 & 2 to comply with the directions given by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the Order to IA No. 891/2024, dated 14.06.2024 and provide all the necessary information;
Initiate the disobedience/non-compliance proceedings against the Respondents 1 & 2.
Heard the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain this application. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed".
3. We do not find any error in the order of Adjudicating Authority
refusing to entertain the application. Adjudicating Authority having already
passed an order on 14.06.2024 there was no occasion to file another
application to seek directions for compliance, all orders passed are to be
complied with.
4. We thus are of the view that application has rightly not been
entertained. It is always open for the appellant to take such steps as
available in law.
5. With these observations, we dismiss the appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical sr/nn
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