Debashis Nanda vs Upaj Buildcon Private Limited
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 143 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an application has been dismissed as withdrawn, the Adjudicating Authority cannot be taken to have adjudicated its merits, and an earlier order rejecting a prayer on a different factual footing does not bar a fresh application seeking the same relief where subsequent events have intervened, here eleven failed e-auctions held after the earlier order, so that the Adjudicating Authority is bound to consider such a fresh application on its merits and dispose of it expeditiously.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Debashis Nanda ....Appellant Liquidator JV Strips Ltd. Vs.
Upaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Parmar, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Prince Mohan Sinha, PCS
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
15.02.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Learned Counsel for the Respondent.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.12.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Court-II, by which order I.A 5689 of 2021 filed by the Liquidator seeking permission of the Adjudicating Authority for private sale of the shares have been rejected.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that earlier on 20.07.2021, an order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the prayer of the Liquidator for private sale of the shares. He submits that after 20.07.2021 order, there have been 11 e-auctions held and reserve price in last auction on 01.01.2022 was Rs.46,93,490/- and the Adjudicating Authority has relying on the earlier order dated 20.07.2021 has again refused to grant permission of private sale.
4. We have perused the order impugned. The order indicates that Application filed by the Liquidator has dismissed as withdrawn. In view of 2
the fact that the Application has been dismissed as withdrawn, no adjudication could be made by the Adjudicating Authority on merits of the Application. Learned Counsel is right in his submission that after 20.07.2021 he has issued 11 dates of e-auction which all failed and shares could not be sold in e-auction.
5. In view of the aforesaid, in the ends of justice, we give liberty to the Appellant to file a fresh Application before the Adjudicating Authority seeking private sale of shares. We make it clear that the earlier order dated 20.07.2021 shall not come in the way of the Appellant in the fresh Application to be filed seeking permission for private sale since subsequent events have taken place including 11 e-auctions held after 20.07.2021. We further observe that in event Application is filed by the Appellant, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the Adjudicating Authority expeditiously since substantial period has already lapsed in the liquidation process.
6. With these observations, the Appeal is disposed of.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 143 of 2022
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