Dewesh Auto Creative Services Private ... vs Pratim Bayal

Dewesh Auto Creative Services Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant

Vs. Pratim Bayal, Resolution Professional of A K Power ...Respondent Industries For Appellant: Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, Ms. Swati Sood, Advocates.

For Respondent: Ms. Sadapurna Mukherjee, Advocate for RP. Mr. Pratim Bayal, RP in person

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

27.04.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.08.2021 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata

Bench, by which order the Adjudicating Authority has directed for liquidation

and has appointed Resolution Professional to act as Liquidator after receiving

his consent.

3. The Appellant, who as per the submission of the Counsel for the

Appellant, has 2% voting share in the Committee of Creditors (CoC) is partly

aggrieved by the order insofar as the same Resolution Professional has been 2

appointed as a Liquidator. Learned Counsel submits that he has filed certain

objections before the Adjudicating Authority which have not been adverted to.

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

we have also heard Counsel for the Liquidator who submits that the majority

of Financial Creditors have no objection regarding appointment of the

Resolution Professional as Liquidator. It is submitted that the Appellant, who

has voting share in the CoC only 2%, due to some ulterior reason is opposing

the appointment of the Liquidator.

5. We have considered the submission of the Learned Counsel for the

parties and perused the record.

6. In the order, which has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority, no

submission has been noticed regarding any objection by any one with regard

to appointment of the Liquidator. The Appellant's submission is that he has

filed his objection with regard to Resolution Professional and he referred to

Affidavit filed on behalf of the Appellant dated 22.03.2021. We are of the view

that at the instance of the Appellant, who according to the Counsel for the

Appellant has only 2% voting share and when there is no objection by majority

of Financial Creditors regarding the appointment of Liquidator, no objection

can be entertained against the appointment of Liquidator, we see no reason to

entertain this Appeal challenging the impugned order.

7. With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 453 of 2022 3

8. Shri Rishav Banerjee, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that

he should be given leave to re-agitate the matter. We are of the view that no

such leave can be granted to further delay the matter. The prayer is rejected.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)

Anjali/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 453 of 2022