Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd vs Tayo Rolls Ltd & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1508 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal reasons that costs should not be imposed on an applicant whose allegations against an insolvency professional were rejected but whose application for replacement of that professional was itself allowed, since success on the replacement application shows a case was made out for replacement and the allegations were not wholly without basis. Further, where the applicant is a public sector undertaking whose costs would ultimately fall on consumers, the imposition of costs is not appropriate.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
M/s. Tayo Rolls Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Mr. Aabhas Parimal and Mr. Jamnesh Kumar, Advocates
For Respondents : Mr. Ritesh Khare, Advocate and Mr. Anish Agarwal, Resolution Professional Mr. Rahul Adlakha, Advocate Mr. Sabhay Choudhary, Advocate for 3rd Respondent
ORDER
16.01.2020 This appeal has been preferred by 'Jharkhand Bijli Vitran
Nigam Ltd.' against the part of the order dated 30th October, 2019 whereby the
Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench,
Kolkata dismissed the application preferred by the Appellant and imposed a cost
of Rupees One Lakh each to be paid to the Resolution Professional by the
Appellant.
In C.A. (IB) No. 840/KB/2019, the Appellant made certain fraudulent
allegations against the erstwhile 'Resolution Professional'. However, in C.A. (IB)
No. 1008/KB/2019 for replacement of the 'Resolution Professional'.
On service of notice, Mr. Sabhay Choudhary, Advocate appears on behalf
of erstwhile Resolution Professional - Ms. Vinita Agarwal.
Mr. Rahul Adlakha, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Anish Agarwal,
'Resolution Professional', who replaced the earlier 'Resolution Professional'.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that
while Adjudicating Authority did not accept the allegations against the erstwhile
Resolution Professional - 'Ms. Vinita Agarwal, and rightly dismissed the
application, we hold that it is not a fit case to impose cost for two reasons :
1) 'Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.' is a Public Sector Undertaking and
if the cost is imposed, it will practically charge on the consumers.
2) If the allegations are wrong, for one or other reason, the application for
replacement of Ms. Vinita Agarwal was allowed, that means the case is
made out to replace the earlier Resolution Professional.
In the circumstances, we affirm the part of the impugned order dated 30th
October, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal), Kolkata Bench, Kolkata and whereby C.A. (IB) No. 840/KB/2019 and
C.A.(IB)NO. 970/KB/2019 was dismissed and set aside the part of the order
whereby the cost of Rupees One Lakh - 'Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.' was
imposed on the Appellant to be paid in favour of the erstwhile Resolution
Professional.
The appeal stands disposed of. No costs.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Member (Judicial)
/ns/sk/
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1508 of 2019
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