Miss Lucy
← All judgments

K. Srinivas Krishna vs Shyam Arora

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal11 July 2022

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The order of 2 September 2021 remitted the matter to the Adjudicating Authority solely to decide the fees and costs of the CIRP payable to the Interim Resolution Professional by the Corporate Debtor; it did not set aside the Bank Guarantee or otherwise direct any relief beyond that remand, so a contempt petition alleging disobedience of that order cannot succeed where the impugned conduct falls outside the scope of the directions actually given.

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

Judgment

As delivered

1

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI CONTEMPT CASE (AT) NO.9/2022 IN COMPANY APPEAL (AT)(Ins) No.221/2021 In the matter of: Kodeboyina Srinivas Krishna Appellant Vs Shyam Arora & Anr Respondent

For Appellant: For Respondent: ORDER

VIRTUAL MODE 11.07.2022: Heard Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the

Appellant. The present petition has been filed on an allegation of wilful

disobedience of an order passed by this Appellate Tribunal dated 2nd

September, 2021. By the said order the matter was remitted back to the

Adjudicating Authority to decide the fees and cost of CIRP payable to the IRP

which was to be borne by the Corporate Debtor. On examination of the order

dated 2nd September, 2021 it is evident that while setting aside the order of

CIRP the matter was simply remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to the

extent to decide the fees payable to the IRP. Learned Counsel for the Appellant

argues that once the CIRP proceedings was set aside, there was no reason to

interfere with the Bank Guarantee. However, the Court is of the opinion that

the matter has been remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority to the extent 2

to decide the cost payable to IRP. If in any event the petitioner is aggrieved,

he would be at liberty to approach the Adjudicating Authority. We are of the

considered opinion that there is no case of violation of the earlier order. The

petition stands disposed off.

(Justice Rakesh Kumar) Member (Judicial)

(Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra) Member (Technical) Bm/gc

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