Globe Capital Market Limited vs Narayan Securities Limited

Globe Capital Market Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Narayan Securities Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Present but appearance not marked. For Respondent:

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

19.01.2024: I.A No. 62 of 2024: This is an application praying for

condonation of refiling delay of 106 days. Learned counsel for the Appellant

submits that defects were marked on several times, hence, time was taken to

remove objections. It is submitted that Appeal was filed within the time but

removal of defects took time due to the fact that defects were communicated

on many occasions. Cause shown sufficient, refiling delay is condoned. I.A.

No.62 of 2024 stands disposed of.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This appeal has been filed

against the order dated 03.07.2023 by which order application filed by the

Appellant under Section 7 has been rejected on the ground that the

Respondent is a Financial Service Provider and against a Financial Service

Provider the application under Section 7 is not maintainable. In Para 29 of

the judgment the Adjudicating Authority has recorded its conclusions, which

is to the following effect:

Cont'd../ -2-

"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that Respondent is a "Financial Service Provider" in terms of Section 3(17) of IBC 2016 and as a consequence of that, it cannot be considered a "Corporate Person" as defined under Section 3(7) of IBC 2016. Accordingly, no application under Sections 7 (and for that matter under Section 9 or 10) of IBC 2016 can be filed against a "financial service provider" to initiate its CIRP."

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant sought to contend that the

relationship with the Respondent of the Appellant were of different nature.

4. Be that as it may. When the Respondent is a Financial Service Provider,

application under Section 7 is not maintainable since he is not included in the

definition of corporate person as defined in Section 3(7) of the Code. We are

of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error in

rejecting the application as not maintainable. We, thus, do not find any

ground to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed. It is,

however, open for Appellant to take such other remedy as available to the

Appellant against the Respondent.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.32 of 2024