Anish Agarwal vs Orissa Metaliks Private Limited

Anish Agarwal Resolution Professional of Tayo Rolls Ltd. ...Appellant Vs. Orissa Metaliks Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Mr. Azeem Khan, Advocates For Respondent:

ORDER

16.11.2022: This is an application praying for condonation of 135 days'

delay in refiling of the appeal. The additional affidavit has been filed on behalf

of the Appellant where the reasons have been explained for late refiling the

appeal. It is submitted that the delay was caused due to non-availability of

the Counsel handling the matter in Kolkata and further Resolution

Professional was to apprise the facts to the CoC in which sufficient time was

taken. Delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.

Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1319 of 2022 & I.A. No. 4073, 4012 of 2022

1

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 08th April, 2022

passed by the Adjudicating Authority by which IA(IB)356/KB/2020 filed by

the Respondent is allowed. The application was filed by the Respondent for

seeking refund of the Earnest Money deposited before submission of the

Resolution Plan.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Respondent No.

1 submitted Expression of Interest (EOI) but failed to submit the Resolution

Plan although information asked for were supplied.

4. The Adjudicating Authority while allowing the application has made the

following observations in para 3:-

"3. We consider this letter to be a complete dereliction

of duties and responsibilities on the part of the

Resolution Professional. It is in the teeth of regulation

36((4)(d) of the CIRP Regulations, which specifies that

the detailed invitation shall not require payment of any

fee or any non-refundable deposit for submission of EOI,

on the part of the prospective Resolution Applicant. The

fact remains that the Resolution professional has not

only not read the regulation in the right spirit: he has

additionally compounded the matter by directing the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1319 of 2022 & I.A. No. 4073, 4012 of 2022

2 applicant herein to file its claim before the Liquidator in

the matter."

5. The Respondent No. 1 never submitted the Plan, hence, there was no

occasion for forfeiting the security and Regulation 36A(4)(d) clearly requires

that no non-refundable deposit be asked for while giving the invitation to

submit Expression of Interest. We do not find any good ground in the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)

ss/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1319 of 2022 & I.A. No. 4073, 4012 of 2022

3