Jitender Kumar Jain (Liquidator Of ... vs Na
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 214 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority should not have made passing observations disparaging a liquidator's understanding of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, where the Code is new and its provisions are still being understood by all persons dealing with it; where a doubt exists in the mind of a Resolution Professional or Liquidator, the proper course is for the Adjudicating Authority to give appropriate clarification rather than make adverse remarks, and an observation made without that basis is set aside on appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Jitender Kumar Jain ...Appellant (Liquidator of Roofit Industries Ltd.)
Present:
For Appellant: Mr. Sukumar Patt Joshi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raktim Gogoi and Mr. Kartikeya Singh, Advocates.
Mr. Ravinder Rawat, Advocate for one of the Financial Creditor.
ORDER
26.07.2018: Heard Mr. Sukumar Patt Joshi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the 'Mr. Jitender Kumar Jain, Liquidator' and Mr. Ravinder Rawat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of one of the Financial Creditor.
2. The grievance of the Appellant is against part of the observation made by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Mumbai Bench dated 15th March, 2018 in MA 117/2018 in C.P. No.1055/IB/NCLT/MAH/2017, whereby in the application preferred by the Resolution Professional to explain certain provisions of law. The Adjudicating Authority made observation that Appellant should read the provisions in the perspective that is present in the Code which he has not done having some notion in the back of his mind.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that such observation was uncalled for 'The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016' being a new Code, every person who are dealing with the subject including Resolution -2-
Professionals, Liquidators, Lawyers, Adjudicating Authority and even the members of this Appellate Tribunal are trying to understand the provisions of the Code. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority was not required to make any passing observations about the Liquidator. If there was some doubt in the mind of the Resolution Professional/Liquidator, the Adjudicating Authority could have made appropriate clarification. For the said reason, we set aside the part of the impugned order which relates to observation against the Liquidator as made by impugned order dated 15th March, 2018. The appeal is disposed of with aforesaid observation. No cost.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial)
am/sk
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 214 of 2018
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