Dr. Hema Joshi & Another vs Shri Bhupendra Singh Narayan Singh ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1885 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal declined to disturb the Adjudicating Authority's refusal to implead the State of Uttarakhand in the insolvency proceedings, on the ground that a Resolution Applicant takes the corporate debtor's assets on an "as is where is" basis, so that a claim that a lease of land was not renewed does not warrant the State's impleadment at that stage.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Dr. Hema Joshi & Anr. ....Appellants Vs. Shri Bhupendra Singh Narayan Singh Rajput (RP of ...Respondents Alps Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) & Ors. For Appellants Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, Advocate. For Respondents
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
18.10.2024: Heard Counsel for the Appellant.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Ahmedabad, Division Bench, Court-1 by which IA No.1271(AHM) 2024 filed by the Appellant for impleadment of State of Uttarakhand has been rejected.
3. Counsel for the Appellant submits that in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.72 of 2023 which was filed by the SRA, the liberty was granted by this Tribunal to the intervenors who were the Appellants to file an application before the Adjudicating Authority. It is submitted that the application has been filed on account of liberty granted by this Tribunal.
4. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.72 of 2023, this Tribunal directed in paragraphs 8, 9 & 10 as follows:-
"8. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that any of the issues raised by the Intervenor cannot be examined in this Appeal, however, liberty is granted to the Intervenor to file an appropriate 2
application before the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law.
9. In view of the developments which have taken place in the Appeal and the facts that entire amount has been deposited and initially protection was granted by this Tribunal, it is submitted that no steps have been taken in the liquidation sofar except for inviting claims. We are of the view that the impugned order of liquidation dated 07.12.2022 deserves to be set aside and the Appellant may take steps for implementation of the Resolution Plan in accordance with law.
10. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly."
5. The Resolution Plan with regard to Corporate Debtor stand approved and the liquidation order has been set aside. Appellants who claim to be legal heirs of the promoter has filed the application and Appellants' case is that the lease of the land was not renewed. It is well settled proposition that the SRA takes the assets of the corporate debtor on "as is where is basis", therefore, the issue of impleadment of the State of Uttarakhand at this stage has rightly been not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority.
6. We do not find any error in the order. The Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1885 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6804 of 2024
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