Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Atul Kumar Kansal vs Crown Abacus Park Association

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal25 August 2021

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

An appeal under Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not maintainable where the appellant is not aggrieved by any order of the Adjudicating Authority; delay in the Adjudicating Authority's disposal of an application under Section 30(6) is not itself an order appealable under Section 61(1), and the Appellate Tribunal may instead dispose of such an appeal with a request that the Adjudicating Authority decide the pending application within a stated period.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH,NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 620 of 2021

IN THE MATTER OF: Atul Kumar Kansal Resolution Professional, Crown Realtech Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Vs. Crown Abacus IT Park Association ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. RK Gupta, Mr. Swarlipi Deb Roy, Advocates Mr. Atul Kumar Kansal, RP Party in person For Respondent: Mr. Anjaneya Mishra, Advocate

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode) 25.08.2021: Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, he submits that RP filed

I.A. No. 5687 of 2020 on 12.12.2020 under Section 30(6) of the IBC seeking

approval of the Resolution Plan before the Adjudicating Authority. The matter

has been listed on various dates but no effective hearing has taken place since

then. The Corporate Debtor is a Real Estate Company and Developing a

Commercial IT Park Project, Faridabad, Haryana, the license to develop the

project was obtained in the year 2008, however, after lapse of 12 years the project

has not been completed and units have not been handed over to the allottees.

Due to inordinate delay in approval of the Resolution Plan the costs of

construction is increasing day by day, therefore, they have filed this Appeal for

seeking direction to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to dispose of the Application

I.A. No. 5687 of 2020 at the earliest.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 620 of 2021 2

2. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent (Successful Resolution

Applicant) supports the argument advanced on behalf of the Appellant.

3. After hearing Ld. Counsels for the parties, we have gone through the

record. We find that the Appeal under Section 61(1) of the IBC is not

maintainable as Appellant is not aggrieved by any of the order of the Adjudicating

Authority. However, the Appellant is aggrieved by huge delay in disposal of

Application under Section 30 (6) of the IBC by the Adjudicating Authority. We

deem it appropriate to dispose of this Appeal with the request to the Adjudicating

Authority that make all endeavour to decide the Application I.A. No. 5687 of 2020

within 30 days.

4. Thus, the Appeal is disposed of and pending I.A.s, if any, are also disposed

of.

5. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned

Adjudicating Authority forthwith.

[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical)

Sc/md

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 620 of 2021

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