Deepika Bhugra Prasad Erstwhile ... vs Rabindra Kumar Mintri Liquidator ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 88 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal, having called upon a party to explain non-compliance and to show cause, should await that explanation before taking any step that may be perceived as an adverse action against the party; a direction to forward the impugned order to the regulator (IBBI) issued before the explanation is tendered is set aside as premature and apprehension-inducing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Deepika Bhugra Prasad Erstwhile Resolution Professional International Trenching Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Rabindra Kumar Mintri Liquidator International Trenching Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Lokesh Malik, Mr. Amar Vivek, Mr. Aknand Pratap Singh and Ms. Deepika Bhugna, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Rachit Ranjan, Advocate for R-1.
ORAL ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
[Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain]
12.01.2024 : This Appeal is directed against the Order dated
12.12.2023, by which the Tribunal has asked the erstwhile Resolution
Professional to submit a Compliance Report along with an explanation as to
why the Order dated 04.10.2023 was not complied with.
Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the explanation has been
given in compliance of the Impugned Order but the Appellant is aggrieved
against the last line of the Impugned Order by which the Tribunal has sent
the copy of the Order dated 12.12.2023 to the IBBI.
It is submitted that on the one hand the Tribunal has sought the
explanation and before the explanation could have been offered by the
Appellant, the Tribunal has directed the registry to send the copy of the order
dated 12.12.2023 to the IBBI.
We have heard Counsel for the Parties.
The Tribunal has sought the explanation of the Appellant as to why she
did not submit the documents to the Liquidator in terms of the order dated
04.10.2023 but at the same time directed the Registry to send the copy of the
order dated 12.12.2023 to the IBBI.
In our considered opinion, the Tribunal should have awaited the
explanation of the Appellant before issuing the direction to the registry to
forward the copy of the order dated 12.12.2023 to the IBBI which might have
been sent for information but it has made the Appellant apprehensive of any
adverse action against her before the explanation is tendered by her to the
Tribunal.
In such facts and circumstances, we allow this appeal partly only for
the purpose of setting aside the part of the order i.e. "the Registry is directed
to forward a copy of this Order to the IBBI". Which is hereby set aside
accordingly.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) himanshu/rr
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 88 of 2024 2 of 2
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