Infinity Infotech Parks Limited vs M/S Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 441 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority may permit substitution of the name of a transferee entity in a Section 9 application where the amendment application discloses the merger that was not mentioned in the original application and the materials on record support that the corporate debtor has merged into the transferee. A plea that notice under Section 8 was not properly served, first raised in appeal, need not be entertained at the appellate stage where it is open to the appellant to raise it at the appropriate stage before the Adjudicating Authority.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Gannon Dunkerley & Company Ltd. ...Respondent
For Appellant: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Neha Somani, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Utsav Saxena and Ms. Sweta Murgal Gandhi, Advocates.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
22.04.2022: Heard Shri Jayant Mehta, learned counsel for the
Appellant. This Appeal has been filed against order dated 02.03.2022 passed
by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 182 of 2020. By the I.A. an
application was filed for substitution of the name of the Corporate Debtor with
that of the transferee entity. The Adjudicating Authority has allowed the
Application. Aggrieved by the said order Appellant has filed this Appeal.
2. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority did not committed
any error in allowing the Application filed for substitution of name of the
transferee to be substituted in the Section 9 Application. From the materials
on the record it can be seen that the Amendment Application mentions about
the merger although this was not mentioned in the Section 9 Application.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that there was no proper
service of notice under Section 8. We are of the view that this issue need not
Cont'd..../ 2
be entertained at this stage and it is always open for the Appellant to raise
issues at appropriate stage. With these observations, we dismiss this Appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent has also made submission before
us that they are in the process of settlement and settlement has already been
arrived. We are of the view that it is for the parties to take appropriate steps
before the Adjudicating Authority, if any settlement is arrived.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
[Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 441 of 2022
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