Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Karan Gambhir Director , Forgings Pvt. ... vs Sajeve Bhushan Deora, Liquidator For ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal9 January 2019

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal because the appellant's complaint about the short window for submitting a resolution plan was not raised before the Adjudicating Authority at the appropriate stage, and because no resolution plan was submitted within the statutory period, so that liquidation under Section 33 was the only remaining course.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALNEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 779 of 2018IN THE MATTER OF:

Karan Gambhir, Director, Forgings Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Sajeve Bhushan Deora, Liquidator for Forgings Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present:

For Appellant : Mr. Karan Gandhi and Ms. Sudiksha Saini, Advocates

For Respondent : Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Ms. Vatsala Kak and Ms. Tulika Bhatnagar, Advocates for 'cOc' Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Advocate Mr. Karan Gandhi and Ms. Sudiksha Saini, Advocates

ORDER

09.01.2019 This appeal has been preferred by the appellant - Mr. Karan

Gambhir, Director of Forgings Private Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) against the order

dated 26th October, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National

Company Law Tribunal) Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby the Adjudicating

Authority passed the order under Section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016 (for short, the 'I&B Code') directing for liquidation of the 'corporate

debtor'. On the last occasion when the matter was taken up on 14th December,

2018, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of liquidation

had passed only after 80 days but such submission was not accepted by this

Appellate Tribunal in view of the fact that within the time for filing of resolution

plan, no plan was submitted. Learned counsel for the appellant today submits

-2 -

that only 14 days' time was given to submit the 'resolution plan' and it was very

short period to submit the same. However, that issue was not raised by the

appellant or any other person before the Adjudicating Authority at appropriate

stage.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 'Committee of Creditors'

submits that in absence of any 'resolution plan', the application under Section

33 was filed by the 'Resolution Professional' with the approval of the 'Committee

of Creditors' after 80 days. However, the Adjudicating Authority awaited to find

out whether any other person is ready to file 'resolution plan'. The impugned

order was passed on 26th October, 2018 only on completion of 180 days.

In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent and not denied by

the appellant and in absence of any 'resolution plan', no other option left but to

dismiss the appeal.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No cost.

[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Member (Judicial)

/ns/gc/

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 779 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