Asssam Company India Ltd vs Numazar Dorab Mehta & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 82 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal by the erstwhile director of a corporate debtor is not maintainable once the Adjudicating Authority has approved the resolution plan under Section 31 and the moratorium has ceased, because the corporate debtor then stands under the control of the Successful Resolution Applicant and the erstwhile director cannot prosecute the appeal on its behalf. Once a resolution plan has been approved under Section 31 and the moratorium has expired, the Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to decide any issue arising in the insolvency proceedings, so an interlocutory order in which it declines to decide the parties' pleas and directs them to approach the Special Referee cannot be said to decide any matter on its merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Assam Company India Ltd. ...Appellant
Vs
Numazar Dorab Mehta & Ors. ....Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Basudeb Biswas, Mr. Robin Sirohi and Ms. Vineeta Rathore, Advocates. For Respondents:
ORDER
23.01.2019: This appeal has been filed by the 'Assam Company India Ltd.'
through one of the erstwhile Director against order dated 29th November, 2018
passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal),
Guwahati Bench in I. A. No. 55 of 2018 in CP(IB)/20/GB/2017, whereby and
whereunder the Adjudicating Authority asked the parties to raise their plea
before the Special Referee in accordance of the provisions of the law.
2. From the impugned order we find that the Resolution Plan submitted by
the Successful Resolution Applicant was accepted on 20th September, 2018 and
order under Section 31 was passed, the moratorium expired since then, thus the
'Assam Company India Ltd.' is now under the control of the Successful
Resolution Applicant and therefore at the behest of the erstwhile Director the
appeal by 'Assam Company India Ltd.' is not maintainable. Further on merit we
find that in the impugned order no decision has been taken by the Adjudicating -2-
Authority, nor any finding given with regard to the issues, as the Adjudicating
Authority has no jurisdiction to decide any issue after the order passed under
Section 31. In respect to the plea taken by one or other party, they have been
asked to move before the Special Referee, which is pending.
3. For the reason aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial) am/uk
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 82 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