Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Gyan Chandra Misra vs Three C Universal Developers Private ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal28 September 2022

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

An application for relief under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be read according to the provisions it is actually brought under, as stated in the application and its prayer, and not according to a narrower provision the adjudicating authority assumes it rests on; an order that dismisses such an application as not maintainable under one provision, when it was filed under Section 60(5) read with Rule 49 and Regulation 11, is vitiated by that error in approach and is liable to be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration on the application as filed.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPALBENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 471 of 2022IN THE MATTER OF:

Gyan Chandra Mishra ...Appellant

Versus

Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Ishan Roy Chowdhury, Advocates For Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Mohak Sharma, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocates

ORDER

(Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain:)

28.09.2022: This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.04.2022

passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New

Delhi Bench, Court No. II) by which an application bearing I.A. No. 1688 of

2022 filed by the Appellant under Section 60(5) read with Rule 49 of

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') read with Regulation

11 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution

Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016 (in short 'Regulations') has

been dismissed only on the ground that an application filed under Section 49

of the Code is not maintainable.

2. At the outset, Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that there is an

error on the part of the Adjudicating Authority in not appreciating the facts

on record much less the application (Annexure P2) which was filed under Section 60(5) read with Rule 49 of the Code and not only Rule 49 of the Code.

In this regard, he has drawn our attention to Pg. 28, 38 and also to Pg. 48

containing the prayer.

3. Counsel for Respondent has fairly conceded that the application has in

fact been filed under Section 60(5) and not only Rule 49 of the Code.

4. In view thereof, we are of the considered opinion that there is an error

in the approach of the Adjudicating Authority in dealing with the application

filed by the Appellant considering it to have been filed under Section 49 alone

whereas the application was not filed under Section 49 alone but it has been

filed under Section 60(5) read with Rule 49 of the Code read with Regulation

11 of the Regulations.

5. This aspect of the matter is sufficient to set aside the order and remand

back to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the application once again in

terms of Section 60(5) read with Rule 49 of the Code read with Regulation 11

of the Regulations. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned

order dated 18.04.2022 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the

Adjudicating Authority to decide again, taking into consideration the

application as it is, having been filed under Section 60(5) read with Rule 49

of the Code read with Regulation 11 of the Regulations.

6. The parties are directed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on

10th October, 2022.

7. It is needless to mention that we have not touched any part of the merit

of this case which has been kept open.

8. Counsel for the parties may raise all the issues available to them before

the Adjudicating Authority.

9. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the concerned

Adjudicating Authority for information.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

SC/RR

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