Col Sanjeev Dalal & Ors vs Pramod Kumar Sharma & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1154 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal cannot pass a different order in a later appeal against the same impugned order where an earlier appeal against that order by the same class of persons (the authorised representative of the homebuyers) has already been disposed of on its merits; the disposal of the earlier appeal governs the later one, so no separate ground for interference arises and the later appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Col Sanjeev Dalal & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Pramod Kumar Sharma Resolution Professional & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellants: Mr. Bilal Ali, Mr. Anurag Bhat and Mr. Himanshu Gautam, Advocates.
For Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Mohak Sharma, Mr. Supriyo Banerjee and Mr. Karan Kohli, Advocates for R-1.
ORDER
21.09.2023: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned
counsel appearing for the Respondent. This Appeal has been filed against
order dated 21.04.2023 on I.A. No. 897/2019, which I.A. was filed by the
Authorised Representative Mr. Vivek Raheja.
2. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that an appeal being
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 810 of 2023 has been filed by Vivek Raheja,
Authorised Representative of the Homebuyers, which appeal has already been
disposed of by this Tribunal on 12.07.2023. On 12.07.2023, we passed
following order:
"ORDER
12.07.2023: This appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.04.2023 passed in I.A. No. 897/2019
Cont'd.../ -2-
filed by the Authorised Representative, (the Appellant). The Adjudicating Authority observed that authorised representative is entitled to proceed with the matter in accordance with law if they have any grievance with the RP.
2. Learned Counsel for RP submits that as per the Regulations, the request by AR should contain consent of 33% of the allottees as on date to enable the RP to convene the meeting of the CoC and to consider in the meeting the agenda.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant shall make appropriate request to the RP with the requisite majority as required by Regulation in view of the Regulations 18 of the CIRP Regulations 2016. The Adjudicating Authority had already granted such liberty through the authorised agency like CDSL or NSDL.
4. We, thus, are of the view that there is no ground to interfere with the order impugned.
With the above observations, the Appeal is disposed of."
3. Present appeal has been filed by five allottees authorised by other
allottees. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant is the
Original Applicant who filed Section 7 application. Be that as it may, the
Authorised Representative of the Homebuyers has already filed appeal against
the order dated 21.04.2023, which appeal has been disposed of by this
Tribunal on 12.07.2023. We cannot pass different order in this Appeal. We
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1154 of 2023 -3-
do not find any ground to entertain this Appeal. Appeal is disposed of
accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1154 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