Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Jatin Bachani vs Manish Kumar Gupta

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal3 September 2021

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

An appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 lies only at the instance of an aggrieved person, and a party is not aggrieved by an interlocutory order that passes no adverse decision against it, such as a bare listing order pending the hearing of its own application; such an appeal is therefore not maintainable and is dismissed, while the Adjudicating Authority may be requested to decide the pending application expeditiously.

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

Judgment

As delivered

1National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New DelhiPrincipal BenchCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 682 of 2021

IN THE MATTER OF: Jatin Bachani ... Appellant Vs. Shri Manish Kumar Gupta RP of M/s Three C Project Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: - Ms. Suman Kukrety, Advocate For Respondent: - Mr. G.P. Madaan, Mr. Aditya Madaan and Mr. Shravan Chandrashekhar, Advocate for R1. Ms. Durga Das Agrawal, R2, in person

ORDER

(Virtual Mode)

03.09.2021: Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. She submits that the

Appellant has filed an Application before the Adjudicating Authority on

19.07.2021 for direction to the Resolution Professional (RP) to bring agenda of

removal/replacement of RP before the Committee of Creditors (COC) for voting.

After lapsed of more than a month the Application has not been decided by the

Adjudicating Authority and vide order dated 11.08.2021 the matter is listed for

hearing on 22.09.2021. The Appellant (CoC) is an allottee and a Financial

Creditor of the Corporate Debtor and facing difficulty. Therefore, it is prayed

that the Appeal may be allowed and the Respondent No. 1 (RP) may be directed

to bring an agenda for removal/replacement of RP before the CoC for voting.

2. Before us the order dated 11.08.2021 is impugned. The one-line order is

that "List the matter for hearing on 22.09.2021"

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant unable to convince us how the Appellant

is aggrieved with this order. It is admitted fact that the Appellant has filed the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 682 of 2021 2

Application before the Adjudicating Authority on 19.07.2021 seeking relief for

removal/replacement of RP, which is pending.

4. We are of the opinion that this Appeal is not maintainable, as no adverse

order is passed against the Appellant, therefore, the Appellant is not aggrieved

person, only the aggrieved person can file the Appeal under Section 61 of the

IBC.

5. Thus, the Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable, however, we request

the Adjudicating Authority to decide the aforesaid Application filed by the

Appellant at the earliest.

Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to concern Adjudicating

Authority forthwith.

[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. V.P. Singh] Member (Technical)

[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical)

SC/md.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 682 of 2021

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