Chayan Kumar Roy vs Pinaki Sircar Erstwhile Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1243 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A person who is not the applicant whose application was rejected, and who has not been shown to be aggrieved by the impugned order in his own right, lacks locus standi to appeal against that order, and an appeal filed at his instance is not maintainable.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Chayan Kumar Roy ...Appellant
Versus
Pinaki Sircar, Erstwhile Resolution Professional of Arambagh Hatcheries Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Ms. Tanvi Luhariwala, Advocate. For Respondents :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
15.07.2024: This Appeal has been filed against order dated 04.04.2024
passed by the Adjudicating Authority by which IA No.367(KB)/2024 filed by
Abinandan Holdings Private Limited has been rejected.
2. Abinandan Holdings Private Limited filed application praying
condonation of delay in filing EOI which application was rejected by the
Adjudicating Authority. Prior to the filing of application i.e. 03.01.2024, the
CoC has already passed resolution with 99.77% voting share to liquidate the
Corporate Debtor. Recording the aforesaid observations, the Adjudicating
Authority dismissed the application. Following was observed in Para 16 and
17:
"16. It is submitted that it came to know about the CIRP only on 03.01.2024 whereafter it has come up with this application.
Cont'd.../ 2
17. in our considered opinion, the plea of the applicant is not tenable, in view of the fact that way back on 20.09.2023 more than one year after initiation of CIRP, the CoC with 99.77% voting share have unanimously decided to resolve and liquidate the Corporate Debtor after following the laid down procedure and process."
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant is a worker of
the Corporate Debtor and they are aggrieved by the order. It is submitted that
there are hundreds of workers in the Corporate Debtor who will be adversely
affected in event the Corporate Debtor is liquidated.
4. The present appeal has been filed against order dated 04.04.2024 by
which application filed by Abinandan Holdings Private Limited has been
rejected. We see no reason for the Appellant being aggrieved of said order.
There is no locus in the Appellant to challenge the order dated 04.04.2024 by
which application of one Abinandan Holdings Private Limited was rejected
who wanted to give EOI.
5. Present is not a case where the Abinandan Holdings Private Limited
who has come up in the appeal. We are of the view that at the instance of the
Appellant, appeal is not maintainable. Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1243 of 2024
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