Jitendra Kumar Chhabra vs Mr. Satiram Yadav & Ors

Jitendra Kumar Chhabra ...Appellant

Versus

Satiram Yadav & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. P. Nagesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akshay Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kunal Godhwani and Mr. Palash Singhai, Advocates for R-1 & 3.

ORDER

11.08.2023: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has

been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated

18.05.2023 by which I.A. No. 1420/2023 filed by the Appellant has been

rejected. The Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan by

order dated 05.04.2021. The Appellant claims to be the erstwhile shareholder

and Director of the Corporate Debtor. He has filed the application praying for

several reliefs, which are to the following effect:

"PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to;

a) Allow the Present Application

Cont'd.../ -2-

b) Declare that the entire CIRP of the Corporate Debtor is vitiated by Fraud.

c) Restrain the Corporate Debtor from allotting/creating third party interest on the unsold inventory of the Corporate Debtor during the pendency of this Application.

d) Appoint an Administrator to monitor the implementation of the Resolution Plan take over the management of the Corporate debtor during the pendency of the Application.

e) Recall the order dated 05.04.2021 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in IA No. 263/2021.

f) Direct the re-initiation of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor from the stage of Invitation of Expression of Interest

g) Make reference/complaint against the Respondents Before the Competent Investigating Agency such as CBI, SFIO to investigate the fraud committed by the Respondents

h) Impose Penalty of Rs.1 Crore each upon the Respondent No. 1 to 5.

i) Pass any other order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deems fit in the larger interest of justice."

2. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application holding that plan

having been approved no ground have been made to recall the order.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.934 of 2023 -3-

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that various other reliefs

were also sought in the application and it was not only application for recall

of order. When the order dated 05.04.2021 has become final, the remedy

available to the Appellant was to file an appeal against the order. Since there

is clear prayer to recall the order dated 05.04.2021, hence, the Adjudicating

Authority has not committed any error in rejecting the application on the

ground the no case has been made out. It was further observed that the

implementation of the Resolution Plan is almost complete. We, thus, are of

the view that no ground has been made out. Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.934 of 2023