Dbs Bank Ltd., Singapore vs Shailendra Ajmera & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1068 of 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
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