Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Dbs Bank Ltd., Singapore vs Shailendra Ajmera & Anr

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal9 December 2019

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The appellant, having stated that it never wanted to challenge the resolution plan, cannot raise that challenge in the appeal; the appeal is therefore barred by the principle of estoppel and is dismissed.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALNEW DELHII.A. No. 3618 of 2019INCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1068 of 2019IN THE MATTER OF:

DBS Bank Ltd., Singapore ...Appellant

Versus

Shailendra Ajmera & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta and Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocates

For 1st Respondent: Mr. Raunak Dhillon and Ms. Ananya Dhar, Advocates

For 2nd Respondent : Mr. K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nakul Sachdeva, Mr. Aakarshan and Mr. Damandeep Bhalla, Advocates

Mr. A. S. Chandhiok, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.P.S. Chawla and Mr. Kaustubh Prakash, Advocates for Successful Resolution Applicant

ORDER

09.12.2019 This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant -'DBS Bank

Ltd., Singapore', (dissenting Financial Creditor) against the order dated 4th

September, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law

Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Mumbai wherein the Adjudicating Authority approved

the 'resolution plan' filed by 'Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.', 'Divya Yog Mandir Trust',

'Patanjali Parivahan Private Ltd' and Patanjali Garmudyog Nyas' (jointly).

Earlier when the matter was taken up, Mr. Krishnendu Datta, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that this appeal is -2-

covered by the decision of this Appellate Tribunal in 'Company Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No. 788 of 2019' . It was informed that by order dated 18th

November, 2019, this Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the

Appellant. Therefore, the suggestion was made that the appeal being covered by

the said judgment, similar order should be passed.

In the aforesaid background as the Appellant wanted the dismissal of this

appeal, we are not deliberating on any other issue, except to say that this very

Appellant categorically stated that they never wanted to challenge the 'resolution

plan'. Once they have taken such plea that they never wanted to challenge the

'resolution plan', we are of the view that the Appellant cannot raise such issue

directly in this appeal.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed being barred by principle of estoppel.

I.A. No. 3618 of 2019 stands disposed of.

[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial)

[Justice Venugopal M.] Member (Judicial)

/ns/gc

I.A. No. 3618 of 2019 IN Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1068 of 2019

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