Dharam Chand Yadav vs Rp In The Cirp Of Sidhartha Buildhome Pvt ...
- CitationCOMPANY APPEAL (AT)(INSOLVENCY) NO.270 OF 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not lie against an order admitting an application under Section 7 of the Code on the ground that the corporate debtor's account could have been classified as standard had the financial creditor timely acted on the corporate debtor's one-time settlement proposal, where the corporate debtor is admittedly in default and its account has been declared a non-performing asset.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI COMPANY APPEAL (AT)(INSOLVENCY) NO.270 OF 2021 In the matter of: Dharam Chand Yadav Appellant Vs Devendra Singh RP in the CIRP of Sidhartha Buildhome Pvt Ltd & Anr Respondent Present: Mr. Chandrashekhar A Chakalabbi, Mr. Shiv Kumar Pandey, Mr. Awanish Kumar, Mr. Anshul Rai, Advocates for appellant. Mr. Varsha Banerjee, Mr. Mukund Rawat, Advocates for R1/IRP. Mr S.K. Sharma, Advocate for R2.
ORDER
31.03.2021- Application under Section 7 of IBC filed by Financial Creditor,
Punjab National Bank (earlier Oriental Bank of Commerce) has been admitted
in terms of order dated 4th March, 2021 by the Adjudicating Authority,
National Company Law Tribunal, Court III, New Delhi vide impugned order
dated 4th March, 2021 which is assailed in this appeal on the ground that
Corporate Debtor's account could have been "Standard", had the financial
creditor taken timely decision on OTS proposal of the Corporate Debtor.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant we are of the view that
the appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016
would not lie on this ground. Admittedly the account of the Corporate Debtor
has been declared NPA and the Corporate Debtor is in default. We are told 2.
that this is a home buyers project.
Ms Varsha Banerjee, learned counsel representing Respondent
No.1/IRP submits that IRP has received as many as 550 claims of home
buyers and one claim of financial creditor, Punjab & Sind Bank.
Ms S.K. Sharma, learned counsel representing Respondent No.2,
financial creditor, Punjab National Bank submits that no proposal for OTS is
pending before the Financial Creditor.
In view of the same, the appeal being not maintainable is dismissed.
(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Acting Chairperson
(Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra) Member (Technical) Bm/gc
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