Miss Lucy
← All judgments

El Dorado Biotech Private Limited vs Piramal Capital & Housing Finance ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal28 March 2024

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A party that is not a creditor of the corporate debtor cannot be impleaded as a respondent to an application seeking avoidance of a preferential transaction under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, since such proceedings lie only against creditors; where that is conceded, its name must be deleted from the application.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHII.A. No. 2117 of 2024 inCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 378 of 2024IN THE MATTER OF:

El Dorado Biotech Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellants: Mr. Abhijit Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.S. Vishnu Sankar, Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad B.F., Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Chitra Rentala, Ms. Kriti Srivastava, Mr. Manikanda Prabhu, Ms. Shatakshi Tripathi, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

28.03.2024: Heard Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned senior counsel for the

Appellant and Shri Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the

Respondent. This Appeal has been filed against order passed by the

Adjudicating Authority dated 04.01.2024 by which I.A. No.3127 of 2023 filed

by the Appellant has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant was not a

creditor of the Corporate Debtor which is essential condition for holding any

transaction as preferential transaction under Section 43. It is submitted that

the Appellant was not a creditor and his name ought not to have been

impleaded in I.A. No.2524 of 2020, which was avoidance application.

Cont'd.../ -2-

3. Shri Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel for the Respondent does not

dispute the submission that Appellant is not a creditor. Learned counsel for

the Respondent submits that as per para 5.24 of I.A. No.2524 of 2020, the

Appellant was not a creditor of the Corporate Debtor. Proceedings for

preferential transaction could have been proceeded only against the creditors

and the Appellant being not a creditor of the Corporate Debtor, the

Adjudicating Authority ought to have been deleted the name of the Appellant

from I.A. No.2524 of 2020. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that

there are other Respondents to the I.A. against whom the application has to

be proceeded with and decided.

4. We make it clear that we are only concerned in present case with regard

to Appellant's name, who is party respondent in I.A. No.2524 of 2020. In view

of the submissions of counsel for the parties, as noticed above, we are of the

view that I.A. No.3127 of 2023 deserve to be allowed and name of the Appellant

be deleted from I.A. No.2524 of 2020. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.378 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