Darshan Gandhi vs Hemant J Mehta & Anr

Darshan Gandhi ...Appellant

Versus

Hemant J Mehta RP & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Shreyash U. Lalit, Mr. Manish Paliwal, Ms. Megha Yadav, Advocates. For Respondents: Ms. Anjali Sharma, Advocate for R-1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

28.02.2024: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned

counsel appearing for the Respondent. This appeal has been filed against the

order dated 20.11.2023 by which order application I.A. No.3628/2023 filed

by the Resolution Professional seeking exclusion of period of 936 days in

computation of 270 days of insolvency process period, has been allowed. The

Appellant - Suspended Director aggrieved by the said order has come up in

this Appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that there is no

consideration of the period of exclusion and without adjudication of the said

issue, the Adjudicating Authority has allowed exclusion. It is further

submitted that the Resolution Professional on the one hand sought exclusion

Cont'd.../ -2-

and on the other hand raised bills for the period for which exclusion has been

granted.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Adjudicating

Authority has noticed in Para 2.12 the details of exclusion of 936 days and

the submission that no details are given is incorrect.

4. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

5. The Adjudicating Authority in Para 13 has returned following finding:

"13. As can be seen from the various orders of Hon'ble NCLAT & Hon'ble Apex Court, the Intervener/Ex- Director tried to stall the Insolvency Resolution Process at every possible steps and obtained orders

(i) restraining the constitution of CoC or (ii) Not to implement decisions of CoC or (iii) Status Quo with respect to CIRP of the Corporate Debtor."

6. A perusal of the record indicates that the Promoter/Director have

challenged proceedings at different stages, beginning from the date of

admission of the CIRP, appeals in the Supreme Court has also been filed

against order of this Tribunal. Finding of the Adjudicating Authority that the

Ex-Director tried to stall the CIRP at every stage is fully justified in the facts

of the present case.

7. Exclusion has been granted by the Adjudicating Authority after noticing

the details in Para 2.12, we thus do not find any ground to interfere with the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.118 of 2024 -3-

order of the Adjudicating Authority excluding the period. However, it shall be

open for the aggrieved party to raise issue with regard to entitlement of fee of

Resolution Professional. At the time of exclusion, question of fee of Resolution

Professional was not examined and adjudicated. With the above observations

and liberty, the Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.118 of 2024