Ca Nirav Anupam Tarkas vs State Bank Of India & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1497 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that an application to recall an order is not made out where no grounds for recall are shown on the facts of the case, so the rejection of the recall application under the order's own terms stands. The Tribunal holds that a cost imposed by the Adjudicating Authority may be deleted in appeal where, on the facts of the case, the imposition of such cost is not warranted.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
CA Nirav Anupam Tarkas ....Appellant Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents
For Appellant Present but not marked appearance. For Respondents
ORDER
(HYBRID MODE)
21.11.2023: This Appeal has been filed against the order dated
27.10.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, by which order Adjudicating Authority has rejected
IA No.4912 of 2023 in which the Appellant has prayed the recall of the order
dated 06.09.2023. The order dated 06.09.2023 was passed in IA No.4020 of
2023 which Application was filed by the Stakeholders' Consultation
Committee (SCC) on the basis of decision of SCC for replacement of the
liquidator by 96% of their resolution. The order dated 06.09.2023 is as
follows:-
"IA No.4020/2023-
1. Adv. Inayat Ali Qureshi i/b K K Associates appeared for the State Bank of India/Applicant.
2 2. The present application is filed for replacement of Liquidator by Stakeholders Consultation Committee under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 r/w rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 and Section 276 of the Companies Act, 2013.
3. Counsel for the outgoing liquidator appears and seeks intervention. However, this Bench does not find any merit in the prayers for intervention, because Applicant merely seeks the replacement and he is not making any allegation against out-going Liquidator.
4. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that SCC approved the replacement of existing Liquidator by 96% in their meeting held on 17.06.2023.
5. In view of the meeting of SCC, we allow the IA No.4020/2023 by appointing Mr. Premraj Ramratan Laddha bearing registration no. IBBI/IPA-001/IP- P00060/2017-18/10138 as Liquidator of Corporate Debtor in place of existing Liquidator Mr. Nirav Anupam Tarkas.
6. Accordingly, IA No.4020/2023 is allowed and disposed of."
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that
certain issues which were sought to be raised by the Appellant were not
considered in the order dated 06.09.2023 and there are several facts which
need to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating
Authority, however, did not permit the liquidator to address on the merits of
the resolution.
3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent supported the impugned order.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1497 of 2023 & I.A. No. 5374 of 2023 3
4. We do not find any error in the order rejecting IA No.4912 of 2023. No
grounds for recall of the order dated 06.09.2023 were made out in the facts of
the present case, but we are of the view that in the facts of the present case,
the order of the Adjudicating Authority imposing cost of Rs.50,000/- be
deleted.
5. The Appeal is dismissed subject to deletion of the cost. We make it clear
that we are not expressing any opinion with regard to any other aspect of the
matter.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
Anjali/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1497 of 2023 & I.A. No. 5374 of 2023
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