Kapil Shroff vs Soumitra Lahiri
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2298 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Adjudicating Authority has extended the liquidation period and has itself directed that the liquidator shall not seek any further extension, an appeal against that extension order may be dismissed without interference, since the Adjudicating Authority's own direction forecloses any apprehension of a further extension application. A liquidator who has already been granted time on repeated occasions, including a last opportunity, is not entitled to a further adjournment on the same footing, and the Appellate Tribunal may refuse such a prayer where the earlier indulgences have been expressly limited.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Kapil Shroff ...Appellant Versus Soumitra Lahiri, Liquidator of Space Matrix Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mainak Bose, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anand Sukumar, Mr. S. Sukumaran and Mr. Bhupesh Pathak, Advocates.
For Respondent : Ms. Akanksha Yadav, Liquidator.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
18.03.2025: When the appeal is taken, learned counsel for the
respondent made a request for further time. The liquidator, who appeared
was allowed time on 23.01.2025 to file a reply. Subsequently again on
28.02.2025 liquidator appears and granted two weeks time as a last
opportunity. On 28.02.2025, we have passed the following order:
"Learned counsel for the Liquidator prays for and is allowed, as last opportunity, two weeks' time to file Reply.
As prayed, list this appeal on 18.03.2025."
2. Today when the case is called, learned counsel for the respondent again
makes a request for further time. When the twice time has been allowed to
the liquidator and on the last date on 28.02.2025 we had granted last
opportunity, we are not persuaded to accept the prayer of the liquidator to
grant further time. The prayer of liquidator to grant further time is rejected.
3. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 23.10.2024 passed
by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Division
Bench, Court - II, Kolkata) in I.A. No. 2010/KB/2024, by which order,
Adjudicating Authority has extended the period of liquidation for a further
period of 6 months.
4. Learned Sr. counsel Mr. Bose appearing for the Appellant submits that
liquidator has been making repeated application for extension of liquidation
period. Liquidation order was passed on 24.02.2020 and the liquidation has
been extended from time to time and by the impugned order, liquidator has
extended for further period of 6 months.
5. We have considered the submissions of counsel for the appellant and
perused the record.
6. In para 11 of the order, Adjudicating Authority directed as follow:
"11. In the aforesaid backdrop we condone the delay of 14 days for filing of this present application and allow an extension for a period of 6 months and as such the liquidation process in relation to the Corporate Debtor is required to be completed on or before 24.04.2025. Further, the Liquidator shall make every endeavour to complete the liquidation process within the extended period and not to seek any further extension."
7. The order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 23.10.2024 has
granted 6 months extension which is expiring on 24.04.2025. The period
granted by the Adjudicating Authority in extension, substantially 5 months
have passed and it is about one month period left in completion of the
liquidation hence we are not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 23.10.2024.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 2298 of 2024 2 of 3
8. We however notice that in para 11 Adjudicating Authority has directed
that liquidator shall endeavour to complete the liquidation process within
extended period of 6 months and not to seek any further extension.
9. Adjudicating Authority itself having directed that liquidator not to seek
any further extension, we see no reason to interfere with the order.
Subject to observations as made above, we dismiss the Appeal.
Adjudicating Authority having already observed in para 11 that no
further extension shall be sought by the liquidator, we see no basis for
apprehension of the appellant that liquidator shall file another application.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)
himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 2298 of 2024 3 of 3
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