Essel Infraproject Limited vs J C Flowers Assets Reconstruction ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 848 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority may, pending its decision on a restoration application arising from a dismissed company petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, direct the respondent to maintain status quo over the hypothecated assets, where the status quo order and the dismissal rested on a CIRP initiation order that has since been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal and the restoration application is still under consideration.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Ms. Smriti Churiwal, Mr. Dev Roy, Mr. Sourabh Tandon, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Mr. Chitranshul, Mr. Shourya Shyam, Advocates
ORDER
11.07.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 02.06.2023 by which
order on the Restoration Application No. 13/2023, the Adjudicating Authority
has passed an order directing the Respondent to maintain status-quo with
regard to the hypothecated assets.
2. In the Company Petition which was filed by the Financial Creditor, an
order of status-quo was passed on 28.02.2023. The said Company Petition was
dismissed on 14.03.2023 on the ground that order has already been passed on
01.03.2023 initiating the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. When the
Restoration Application came, order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority
granting time to the Appellant to file a reply and passed an order of status-quo
as noted above.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order contends that
when the Restoration Application was not yet being allowed, the Adjudicating
Authority ought not to have passed the order of status-quo
4. We have considered the submission of the Learned Counsel for the parties
and peruse the records.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 848 of 2023 1
5. The present is a matter where the status-quo order was passed on
28.02.2023 and the Company Petition got dismissed only on the ground of
initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor on 01.03.2023. The order dated
01.03.2023 has already been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal on 28.04.2023,
the consequence of which is that Restoration Application has been filed which
need to be considered. We have informed that order has already been reserved
on the Restoration Application.
6. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that no good ground has
been made out to interfere with the order impugned dated 02.06.2023. The
Appeal is dismissed. Question of law is left open.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
ss/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 848 of 2023 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