In the matter of Rathi Industries Limited
- CitationIB-601(PB)-2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's disposal rests on the following reasoning. Once the Appellate Authority has set aside the admission order and relieved the Corporate Debtor from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, there is no purpose in continuing the proceedings, and a related application that depends on the continuation of the CIRP becomes infructuous and may be withdrawn. Where the appellate order disposes of the insolvency process, the underlying Section 9 petition stands closed as a consequence, without further adjudication.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL: NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH ITEM No. 25 (IB)-601(PB)/2022 IN THE MATTER OF: M/s. Sarvottam Rolling Mills Private Limited …. Petitioner/Applicant v. M/s. Rathi Industries Limited …. Respondent Order U/s. 9 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 (CIRP) Order delivered on 28.08.2023 CORAM: JUSTICE RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR HON’BLE PRESIDENT SH. AVINASH K. SRIVASTAVA HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) (HEARING THROUGH PHYSICAL MODE & VC) PRESENT: For the Petitioner : Mr. Vasu Goyal, Adv. For the Respondent : ORDER IA-2120/2023
Post the admission order dated 10.04.2023, it appears that the matter was listed for further hearing on 03.05.2023. None appeared on behalf of the parties on that day. Then the matter was listed again on 21.08.2023. We called upon the appearance of IRP Ms. Veenu Drall, however, she did not appear.
On 22.08.2023, we again listed the matter for appearance of Ms. Veenu Drall, IRP primarily on account of Section 12A application having been filed by the Financial Creditor and not by the Resolution Professional.
On none of these occasions Ms. Veenu Drall, IRP chose to appear before us. Whatever be the circumstances, the RP is bound to respond to the directions issued by the Adjudicating Authority. Non-appearance of the RP continuously despite several calls shows callous indifference to the Adjudicating Authority.
Be that as it may, the Ld. Counsel Mr. Vasu Goyal for the Petitioner produced an order of the Hon’ble NCLAT dated 27.04.2023 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.529 of 2003, Para-4 of the same reads as under:
“4. We are of the view that in view of the aforesaid, there is no purpose in continuing the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. We set aside the impugned Order dated 10th April, 2023 and the Corporate Debtor is relieved from the CIRP. We further direct the Appellant to make payment of Rs. 2 Lakhs as fee plus expenses incurred in publication within two weeks from today to IRP.
The Appeal is disposed of.”
Mr. Vasu Goyal, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner/Financial Creditor made an endorsement that in view of the above order this application become infructuous and he seeks liberty to withdraw the same.
Further in view of the NCLAT order, he states that CP (IB)-601(PB)/2022 also stands closed automatically.
We make it clear that no further application on this petition may be entertained.
Copy of this order be sent to IBBI to take appropriate action. -Sd/- (RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR) PRESIDENT
-Sd/- (AVINASH K. SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) 28.08.2023 Shubham Pandya
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