El Dorado Biotech Private Limited vs Piramal Capital & Housing Finance ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 378 of 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
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