Chandraiah Subramaniyan vs Digjam Limited & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Mr. ChandraiahSubramaniyan ...Appellant Vs. Digjam Ltd. &Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. AS Sathish Kumar, PCS For Respondent: Mr. Rohan Agrawal, Advocate for R1 & R5 Mr. Sunil Kr. Agarwal, (RP, R2)

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode) 29.07.2021: Ld. PCS Shri Sathish Kumar representing Appellant submits

that Appellant is aggrieved with the order passed by the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority by which the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has rejected the application

as not maintainable.

He further submits that the Appellant is a Financial Creditor his claim was

rejected by the RP, therefore, he has filed Application before the Adjudicating

Authority, however, Adjudicating Authority has rejected the Application,

therefore, the Appellant has filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of

Gujarat, however, the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the Appellant has filed

I.A. No. 195 of 2021 before the Adjudicating Authority but Adjudicating Authority

has erroneously rejected the Application as not maintainable. Ld. Adjudicating

Authority has not considered the fact that the Appellant has advanced a huge

loan to the Corporate Debtor. Thus, the Appeal may be admitted. -2-

We have gone through the impugned order, Ld. Adjudicating Authority

observed that the Resolution Plan has already been approved and the Appellant

has filed the Application and challenging the entire 'Corporate Insolvency

Resolution Process' (CIRP) which is not permissible as per the provisions of IBC,

therefore, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has rejected the application as not

maintainable.

Ld. PCS admits that when the Appellant has filed the Application against

the rejection order of RP before the Adjudicating Authority and Adjudicating

Authority has rejected the Application against that order on 07.02.2020 due to

absence of any cogent evidence against that order Appellant has not filed any

Appeal u/s 61(1) of IBC before this Appellate Tribunal.

We have carefully examined the facts and consider the submissions. We

are of the view that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere in the

impugned order.

Thus, the Appeal is dismissed summarily, however, there is no order as to

costs.

[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical) Ss/sc/Md Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 522 of 2021