Dushyant C Dave vs Respondents
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 993 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority's refusal to exclude a period from the liquidation period of a corporate debtor is supported where the delays relied upon are already subsumed in earlier orders granting exclusion, or where the delay is attributable to steps that form part and parcel of the liquidator's statutory duties, such as processing a request for conversion from stand-alone sale to sale as a going concern. Where the liquidation period has already been extended by a specified period, the Adjudicating Authority may take that extension into account in determining whether a further exclusion is warranted.
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 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 993 of 2024 & I.A. No. 3609 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Dushyant C Dave ...Appellants Liquidator Shirpur Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus --- ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Videh Vaish, Mr. Lalit Mohan, Ms. Aakansha, Ms. Sumbul Ara, Ms. Geetanjali Singh and Mr. Farhan Islam, Advocates. For Respondents : None.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
29.05.2024: This appeal has been filed by the Liquidator challenging the
order of Adjudicating Authority dated 06.02.2024 by which IA No.
1000(AHM)2023 praying for exclusion for a period of 383 days have been
referred. Adjudicating Authority has given sufficient reason for not granting the
exclusion, in paragraph- 15 and 16 Adjudicating Authority had made following
observations:-
15. It is the prayer of the learned liquidator that the period from 01.07.2022 to 19.07.2023 i.e., 383 days the same being gap between the order in IA No. 561 of 2022 and IA No. 523 of 2023 be excluded from the liquidation period of the Corporate Debtor.
16. It is seen that majority of the period for which exclusion is now sought is already subsumed in the earlier two orders dated 05.04.2022 and 20.03.2023. Further, the delays attributed to the request by the successful bidder for conversion from stand-alone sale to sale as a going concern is part and parcel of the liquidator's duties and that cannot be a ground seeking exclusion of the period covered between the order dated 01.07.2022 to 19.07.2023.
2. Adjudicating Authority has further noticed that the liquidation period
was extended by the period of six months on 10.03.2023.
3. We are of the view that no error has been committed by Adjudicating
Authority in refusing prayer of exclusion of 383 days. Ld. Counsel for the
appellant lastly, submitted that liberty be given to make an application for
extension of period since there are certain proceedings which need to be
completed. Subject to liberty of above, the Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)
harleen/NN
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 993 of 2024 & I.A. No. 3609 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