Bhushan Power And Steel Limited vs Mahender Kumar Khandelwal & Anr ...

Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Mahender Kumar Khandelwal & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bishwajit Dubey, Mr. Deepak Joshi, Mr. Kaustubh Rai, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaijayant Paliwal, Ms. Charu Bansal, Ms. Diksha Dadu, Ms. Rajshree Chaudhuri, Advocates for R- 1. Mr. Sapandan Biswal, Advocate for R-2.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

24.04.2024: Heard Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel for

the Appellant and Shri Sunil Fernandes, learned senior counsel appearing for

the Resolution Professional.

2. This Appeal has been filed against order dated 01.04.2023 passed in

New I.A. No.1529 of 2024. The order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is

as follows:

"New IA-1529/2024

Heard Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Applicant. The modal timeline as prescribed by the CIRP Regulations appears to have been breached.

Cont'd.../ -2-

Therefore, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Applicant seeks liberty to file better and proper application.

In view of the above, IA-1529/2024 stands disposed of."

3. This Appeal has been filed by the Corporate Debtor who has taken the

Corporate Debtor after approval of the Resolution Plan on 05.09.2019. It is

submitted that the Resolution Plan has already been implemented on

26.03.2021 and the I.A. No.1529 of 2024 was filed by the erstwhile Resolution

Professional making certain prayers on which application order as stated

above was passed.

4. Shri Niraj Kishan Kaul submits that the observation made by the

Adjudicating Authority that "modal timeline as prescribed by the CIRP

Regulations appears to have been breached", is not a correct observation since

the applications for avoidance were filed in the year 2018 itself.

5. Learned counsel for the Resolution Professional submits that Resolution

Professional has filed four avoidance applications in the year 2018 and they

were pending.

6. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Resolution

Professional did not take any steps for listing and hearing of the applications.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that learned counsel for the

Resolution Professional has taken liberty to file a better and proper application

which ought not to have been allowed since no fresh avoidance application

can be filed. At best the application which is already filed can be prayed to be

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.779 of 2024 -3-

listed and heard. As per the Resolution Plan, the Appellant is now entitled to

pursue the application since the benefit of the Avoidance Applications under

the Resolution Plan shall now enure to be benefit of the Appellant.

7. We are of the view that ends of justice be served in reviving application

I.A. No.1529 of 2024 filed by the Resolution Professional with liberty to the

Appellant to file an application seeking liberty of the Adjudicating Authority to

prosecute the Avoidance Applications in accordance with law. In result, we

set aside order dated 01.04.2024 passed in I.A. No.1529 of 2024 and revive

I.A. No.1529 of 2024 with liberty to the Appellant as above.

8. We make it clear that we have not entered any of the contentions raised

by either of the parties in the application and it is for the Adjudicating

Authority to consider and decide the same in accordance with law. Both the

parties are at liberty to make appropriate application to decide all avoidance

applications which were filed in 2018. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.779 of 2024