Chandra Prakash Jain vs Sudip Bhattachrya

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1008 & 1009 of 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Chandra Prakash Jain [Resolution Professional of E-Complex Pvt. Ltd.] ...Appellant

Versus

Sudip Bhattacharya [Resolution Professional of Reliance Naval and Engineering Ltd.] ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Srivastava and Mr. Gaurav Verma, Advocates. For Respondent: Ms. Prachi Johri, Advocate.

ORDER

25.08.2022: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned

counsel appearing for the Respondent. These two appeals have been filed

against two orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company

Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench dated 30.03.2022 and 05.04.2022.

2. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1008 of 2022 has been filed

against order dated 30.03.2022 with delay and an application for

condonation of delay being I.A. No. 2904-2905 of 2022 has been filed. In the

delay condonation application, the Appellant has prayed for condonation of

91 days' delay in filing the Appeal against order dated 30.03.2022. This

Appeal has been filed on 29.07.2022 against the order dated 30.03.2022

which is clearly barred by time. This Tribunal cannot condone delay of more 2

than 15 days as per the Section 61 of the Code, hence, prayer made in I.A.

No. 2904-2905 of 2022 to condone 91 days delay is rejected. Consequently,

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1008 of 2022 is dismissed as barred

by time.

3. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1009 of 2022 has been filed

against order dated 05.07.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A.

No. 555 of 2022. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has

held that earlier I.A. filed by the Appellant being I.A. No. 151 of 2021 having

already been rejected, where the Appellant had prayed for consideration of

his claim as Financial Creditor, I.A. 555 of 2022 praying for same relief is

barred by res-judicata, since order dated 13.03.2022 has not been

challenged. Learned counsel for the Appellant placed before us the prayers

made in I.A. No. 555 of 2022, which are as follows:-

"The Applicant humbly prays as under:

i. YOUR LORDSHIP MAY BE PLEASED to allow the present Application;

ii. YOUR LORDSHIP MAY BE PLEASED to direct the Respondent to verify and admit the claim Form C submitted by suspended management of ECPL (Applicant) on 14.10.2020;"

iii. YOUR LORDSHIP MAY BE PLEASED to grant any other relief as it may deem fit in the interest of justice."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1008 & 1009 of 2022 3

4. Perusal of order dated 30.03.2022 indicates that claim of the Appellant

as Financial Creditor has already been rejected. In the subsequent I.A. same

prayers have been made seeking direction to the Resolution Professional to

verify and admit the claim Form C submitted by suspended management of

ECPL. We do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority

dated 05.07.2022 rejecting I.A. No. 555 of 2022.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant lastly contended that the

Adjudicating Authority has asked the Resolution Professional to explain as to

how Resolution Professional has replied to applicant about taking

instructions form statutory auditor. It is for the Resolution Professional to

explain and Appellant cannot be allowed to impugn any such observation

made in the impugned order.

6. We do not find any merit in the Appeal. Company Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No. 1009 of 2022 is also dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy] Member (Judicial)

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1008 & 1009 of 2022