Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence vs M/S Shree Ganesh Jewellery House & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 796 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal may permit a person who was not a party to the appeal to intervene in it, where the intervention is needed to do justice between the parties, notwithstanding that the same person's separate appeal against the underlying order was dismissed as barred by limitation with liberty to seek intervention in the present appeal. Where an order of the Appellate Tribunal has already stayed the operation of the impugned order, a separate application seeking a stay of that same order is unnecessary and may be disposed of without further orders.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Manikanchan Special Economic Zone Through Deputy Development Commissioner. ...Applicant/Intervener In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 796 of 2019
IN THE MATTER OF: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ... Appellant Vs. M/s Shree Ganesh Jewellery House & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate For Respondent: Mr. Gaurav H Sethi, Advocate for R1 Mr. Krishnendu Dutta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Aayush Kevlani, Ishaan Chhaya and Mr. Debarshi Dutta, Mr. Anoop Kumar Singh, (liquidator) Advocates for R2. Mr. RK Rawal, Advocate for R3,4,5&6. Mr. Sachin Dutta, Sr. Adv. with Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Ramneek Mishra, Intervener/Applicant in I.A. No. 970-971 of 2020
ORDER
(26.10.2021)
This order shall govern disposal of I.A No. 970 of 2020 an Application
on behalf of the Manikanchan Special Economic Zone through Dy.
Development Commissioner for intervention in this Appeal i.e. CA (AT) (Ins)
No. 796 of 2019 and another I.A. No. 971 of 2020 an Application for stay of
I.A. No. 970-971 of 2020 In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 796 of 2019 2
the operation of the directions issued by the Adjudicating Authority order
dated 23.04.2019 passed in M.A. No. 21-22/KB/2019 in CP (IB) No.
579/KB/2017.
2. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Adjudicating Authority
passed a common order dated 23.04.2019. This order was challenged by the
Applicant/Intervenor in CA (AT) (Ins) 94 of 2020. However, the same has been
dismissed as barred by limitation with the liberty to move intervention
Application in this Appeal vide order dated 20.01.2020 by this Appellate
Tribunal. The same order is challenged in this Appeal. Pursuant to this order,
the Applicant has filed this Application for intervention. Therefore, Ld.
Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant may be permitted to
intervene in this Appeal.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents vehemently oppose
the application and submit that allowing the Application means permitting
the Applicant to agitate the grounds which were raised in the Appeal CA (AT)
(Ins) No. 94 of 2020, whereas the same has been dismissed as barred by
limitation. Therefore, the Application is liable to be dismissed.
4. We have carefully examined the grounds stated in the Application. We
are of the view that the Applicant should have been allowed to intervene in
this Appeal, to do justice with the parties.
5. Thus, I.A. No. 970 of 2020 is allowed and we permit the Applicant to
intervene in this Appeal.
I.A. No. 970-971 of 2020 In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 796 of 2019 3
6. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant in I.A. No. 971 of 2020 prayed that the
operation of the impugned order i.e. order dated 23.04.2019 may be stayed.
It is also pointed out that in the present Appeal vide order dated 06.08.2019
this Appellate Tribunal has already directed that till further orders RP will not
take possession of the properties belonging to the Corporate Debtor.
7. We have considered the submissions, we have already stayed the
operation of the impugned order vide order dated 06.08.2019, therefore, no
further orders are required.
8. Thus, I.A No. 971 of 2020 is disposed of.
[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical)
SC
I.A. No. 970-971 of 2020 In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 796 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