Gammon Engineers And Contractors ... vs Vishwanath Industries
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1478 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a company has succeeded to the assets and liabilities of a predecessor under a scheme of arrangement sanctioned by the Tribunal, the successor company may be substituted in place of the predecessor as a party to a pending Section 9 application, the substitution being a change of name only and not an illegality. Objections going to the merits of a Section 9 application are not decided at the stage of an interlocutory order on impleadment; they are reserved for the hearing of the Section 9 application itself.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Gammon Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant Vs. Vishwanath Industries ...Respondent
For Appellant Mr. Pradnyesh Sabnis, Advocate. For Respondent
ORDER
(HYBRID MODE)
22.11.2023: I.A. No. 5193 of 2023:- This is an application praying for
Condonation of 108 days' delay in re-filing the Appeal. Learned Counsel for
the Appellant submits that the defects were communicated on several
occasions and defects could not be cleared since Appellant is based in Mumbai
and a large number of pages had to be re-typed. Cause shown sufficient. Delay
is condoned. IA No.5193 of 2023 is disposed of.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1478 of 2023 :-
This is an appeal against the order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the
Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench,
Court-II, has allowed IA No.2037 of 2022 filed by the Applicant to implead the
Gammon Engineers and Contractors Private Limited as Respondent.
Application under Section 9 was filed by the Operational Creditor against 2
Gammon India Ltd. Operational Creditor filed an application for impleadment
of Gammon Engineers and Contractors Private Limited who as per the Scheme
of Arrangement sanctioned by NCLT vide order dated 22.03.2017 has been
substituted in place of Gammon India Limited. The Adjudicating Authority
has allowed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, Appellant has come
up in this Appeal.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the order has been
passed without considering the objection raised by the Appellant. It is
submitted that the Demand Notice was issued to Gammon India Ltd., hence,
the Appellant cannot be substituted. It is further submitted that in the reply
to the Demand Notice it has been already intimated to the Operational
Creditor that in place of Gammon India Ltd., now Gammon Engineers and
Contractors Private Limited has taken all assets and liabilities.
3. We have considered the submissions raised by the Counsel for the
Appellant. It is a case of the Appellant itself that it has taken place of Gammon
India Ltd. by virtue of arrangement scheme sanctioned by NCLT by order
dated 22.03.2017. Application under Section 9 was filed by Gammon India
Ltd., the predecessor in interest of the Appellant. By the application only the
name of the Appellant has been substituted in place of predecessor in interest,
in which we do not find any illegality.
4. Insofar as the submissions raised on the merits of Section 9 application,
it is always open for the Appellant to press it at the time of hearing of Section
9 application.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1478 of 2023 & I.A. No. 5193 of 2023 3
5. With these observations, we dismiss the appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
Anjali/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1478 of 2023 & I.A. No. 5193 of 2023
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