Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Dauphin Cables Private Limited vs Parveen Bansal And Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal18 May 2023Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Appellate Tribunal's refusal to interfere rests on the following reasoning. An order that merely gives consequential effect to an earlier adjudicatory order, by reconstituting the Committee of Creditors and directing re-examination of a resolution plan once a creditor has been reclassified from financial creditor to other creditor, raises no infirmity warranting appellate interference. Grievances about non-compliance with other orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority are not within the scope of an appeal against the specific orders under challenge, and must be pursued by the appropriate remedy available in law.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH,NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 634-636 of 2023IN THE MATTER OF:

Dauphin Cables Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Praveen Bansal Resolution Professional & Ors. ...Respondents

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Mr. Manish Paliwal, Ms. Megha Yadav, Advocates

For Respondent: Mr. Mohit Jolly, Ms. Veenu Drall, Advocates for R-1 Dr. Farrukh Khan, Utkarsh Kulvi, Yashi Sharma, Advocates for R-2 Mr. Vipul Ganda, Ms. Guresha Bhamra, Ms. Abhipsa Mohanty, Ms. Priyanka, Advocates for R-3

ORDER

18.05.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

This Appeal has been filed against the orders dated 14.02.2023 passed by

Adjudicating Authority by which the claim of the Financial Creditor has been

treated to be other Creditor and order dated 01.03.2023 on IA No. 5920/2022

by which Adjudicating Authority has directed that in view of the order passed on

14.02.2023 in IA No. 5940/2021, the CoC is to be re-structured and the Plan

has to be re-examined by CoC in the light of the order.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in so far as the order dated

14.02.2023, he has no substantial grievance. He submits that as far as the order

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 634-636 of 2023 1 dated 01.03.2023 he is aggrieved since direction has been issued to re-

consideration by the CoC whereas there has been several orders intervened

between that and the Appellant has grievance that orders passed by the

Adjudicating Authority has not been complied with.

4. We have considered the submission of Learned Counsel for the Appellant

and perused the record. Order dated 01.03.2023 in IA No. 5940/2021 is as

follows:-

"IA 5940/2021 - We have heard the

Counsel for the Resolution Professional. In the

light of the order passed by this Adjudicating

Authority in IA 2435/2021 & IA 5980/2022 by

which one of the Creditors namely CRC has

been held to be 'Other Creditor' rather than a

'Financial Creditor' consequentially entails

change in the composition of the CoC which has

approved the 'Resolution Plan'. Therefore, the

re-structured CoC is directed to be convened

and the Resolution Plan may be examined by

this CoC in the light of the order passed in the

above 2 IAs. The IA 5940/2021 is accordingly

disposed off."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 634-636 of 2023 2

5. The order dated 01.03.2023 is only consequential order to the earlier order

dated 14.02.2023 in view of the one Financial Creditor going out of the CoC, the

CoC has to be re-structured and the CoC has to be re-examine the plan which

was earlier considered by the CoC. We do not find any infirmity in the order so

as to entertain this Appeal.

6. In so far as other grievance of the Appellant that certain other orders which

have intervened have not been complied with, those issues are not required to

be considered in this Appeal and the Appellant has to take appropriate remedy

for that in accordance with law.

With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

ss/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 634-636 of 2023 3

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