Bhagawati Singh vs Incab Industries Ltd

Bhagwati Singh ...Appellant

Versus

Incab Industries Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. A. K. Shrivastava, Mr. Akash Sharma and Mr. Subesh Kumar Sahoo, Advocates.

For Respondent: Mr. Aditya Gauri, Mr. Dhananjaya Sud, Mr. Amar Vivek, Mr. Jayesh, Mr. Chaitanya Bansal, Mr. Shalya Agarwal, Ms. Damini Srestha and Mr. Abhinav Tyagi, Advocates for RP.

ORDER

31.01.2023: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned

counsel appearing for the Resolution Professional. In pursuance of order

passed by this Tribunal dated 20.09.2022, Resolution Professional has filed

a Status Report.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.12.2021 by

which order the Adjudicating Authority has rejected I.A. No. 226(KB)2021,

I.A. No. 797(KB)2021 and few other I.A.s filed on behalf of the Appellant.

Appellant claims to be representing workmen of the Corporate Debtor. In the

applications, the Applicants have made various prayers which Adjudicating

Cont'd.../ 2

Authority after noticing prayers i.e. prayers in I.A. No. 226(KB)2021 took the

view that these prayers cannot be granted and application was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the impugned order

raised various submissions. It is submitted that the CIRP process has not

been undertaken as per the direction of this Tribunal in earlier judgment

and order dated 04.06.2021. Other submissions have also been made

including on the constitution of CoC.

4. Learned counsel for the Resolution Professional in his Status Report

has submitted that after the order of this Tribunal, the new Resolution

Professional has commenced the process and issued fresh Form G and

thereafter Resolution Plans have been received and one Resolution Plan has

been approved by the CoC in its 22nd meeting held on 23.06.2022. It is

submitted that the Resolution Applicant has offered a package of Rs.445

crores for revival of the Company and an application has already been filed

before the Adjudicating Authority for approval of the Resolution Plan.

5. In facts of the present case and the stage in which the CIRP has been

proceeded, we are of the view that the Appellant's grievances can be raised

by way of objection before the Adjudicating Authority and the Adjudicating

Authority at the stage of approval of the plan may take consideration of the

objections and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is open for

the Appellant to file objections before the Adjudicating Authority and also

make prayers as may be advised. We are not expressing any opinion on

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 914 of 2022 & I.A. No. 2513 of 2022 3

various contentions raised in the Appeal. In view of the facts of the present

case and the stage in which CIRP has been gone into, we are not inclined to

interfere with the impugned order. With these observations, the Appeal is

disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 914 of 2022 & I.A. No. 2513 of 2022