Indus Motor Company Private Limited vs Tp Anilkumar
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 45/2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The impugned order of the NCLT, which does not adjudicate rights on the merits but leaves the matter to be reconsidered and all contentions open to be argued afresh before the Adjudicating Authority, is not an adjudication of rights on merits, and an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is therefore not maintainable against it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 45/2024 Page 1 of 3 (8) Mrs. Yasmin Wahab. Indus Motor Company Private Limited Box No. 923, Indus House, Chakkorathukilam Calicut - 673005 ... Appellants V
(1) Mr. T.P. Anilkumar 310 NBQ, Bank Street, Dubai, UAE (2) Mr. T.P. Ajith Kumar 310, NBQ building Khalid Bin Waleed Road, Dubai, UAE (3) Mrs. T.P. Sarada Ashirwad Florican Road, Calicut (4) Mrs. Anju Madhav EL-90, Electronic Zone MIDC Mahape, Navi, Mumbai - 400710 ...Respondents Present : For Appellants : Mr. Santosh Mathew, Senior Advocate For Mr. Alishan Naqvee, Ms. Rupal Bhatia, Mr. Iman Naqvi and Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocates
For Respondents : Mr. Arvindh Pandian, Senior Advocate For Mr. Tejas Karia, Ms. Medha Sachdev, Ms. Shruti V Khanijow, Ms. Riya Basu, Ms. Simran Malhotra & Ms. Amoolya Vinjamur, Advocate
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 08.08.2024:
The Appellant in this Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 45 / 2024, puts a challenge to the impugned order of 21.06.2024, as it has been passed by the Kochi Bench of NCLT in IA (C/Act) / 102 /KOB / 2024, as it was preferred in CP / 02 / KOB / 2020.
Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 45/2024 Page 2 of 3 On the simpliciter reading of the impugned order under challenge, the Tribunal has concluded the arguments and had reserved the Orders.
It is contended by the Appellant that being aggrieved against the same order of 21.06.2024, a Writ Petition has been preferred and the same is pending consideration. We are not venturing on the effect of pendency of the Writ Petition at this stage.
He further submits that the proceedings will be bad, for the reason being that in an earlier set of proceedings as decided on 06.06.2024, no liberty was reserved to the Respondents for initiation of the proceedings as fresh.
All these legal and vital issues, if at all available are still to be addressed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, when the proceedings in IA (C/ACT)/102/KOB/2024 stands revived to be argued as fresh, because of the demitting of office of one of the members who had reserved the Order.
Owing to the fact that all arguments are still opened to be argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, before the NCLT itself, we are of the view that since the impugned order of 21.06.2024, is not an adjudication of rights on merits, no Appeal under Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016, would be maintainable.
Subject to the aforesaid liberty for raising all the contentions at the stage when the IAs are reconsidered by the NCLT, Kochi Bench, this Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 45 / 2024, would stand dismissed.
[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)
[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical) SR/TM
Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 45/2024 Page 3 of 3
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