Ip Sunil Kumar Kedia Erstwhile ... vs Ravi Bansal & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 1516 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Resolution Plan contains no provision identifying who is to pursue an application under section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and the Adjudicating Authority has directed that the Resolution Applicant pursue it, a Resolution Professional has no right to insist that it alone pursue such an application; the Appellate Tribunal sees no infirmity in the Adjudicating Authority permitting the Resolution Applicant to do so.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 1516 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: IP Sunil Kumar Erstwhile Resolution Professional ... Appellant Versus Ravi Bansal & Anr. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rajat Sinha, Advocate for R-1
ORDER
04.05.2023: This appeal has been filed against the order dated 13.10.2022
by which IA No. 90 of 2022 in IA No. 300/2019 filed by the 'Resolution
Professional' (RP) for rectification of the order dated 17.09.2021 has been
rejected.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in the order which was
passed by the Adjudicating Authority, it was inadvertent mistake that in place
of RP, 'Resolution Applicant' (RA) has been mentioned.
3. It is further submitted that a 'Stakeholders Consideration Meeting' on
21.10.2020 has resolved that Chairman of the Monitoring Committee shall
pursue the Interlocutory Application.
4. We have considered the submission of the Learned Counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
5. The Resolution Plan which is on record does not contain any provision as
to who shall pursue the Interlocutory Application u/s 66 of the IBC. In order
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 1516 of 2022 1 dated 17.09.2021, the Adjudicating Authority has observed the application shall
be pursued by the RA. The application for rectification was filed by RP.
6. We see no reason to take any different view as has been taken by the
Adjudicating Authority in its order dated 13.10.2022. When the RA has been
permitted to pursue the application, no infirmity can be found and we are of the
view that RP does not have any right to claim that it is only RP who shall pursue
the application filed u/s 66 of the IBC.
7. It is further submitted by the Respondent that Resolution Plan has already
been implemented.
8. We are, thus, of the of view that no useful purpose shall be served in
keeping this appeal pending. The Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
ss/nn
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 1516 of 2022 2
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