Liberty House Group Pte. Ltd vs Argl Ltd. & Anr

IN THE MATTER OF: Liberty House Group Pte. Ltd. ...Appellant Vs. ARGL Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: - Mr. K. Datta and Ms. Prachi Johri, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Abhinav Vashisht, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anoop Rawat, Mr. Siddhant Kant and Mr. Samar Panda, Advocates.

Ms. Anannya Ghosh, Advocate for RP.

O R D E R

08.03.2019─ In the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process'

initiated against 'ARGL Limited', the 'Resolution Professional' on the

authorisation of the 'Committee of Creditors' filed an application to

withdraw IA No. 823(PB)/2018 which was filed under Section 30 read

with Section 31 and 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

("I&B Code" for short) for seeking approval of the 'Resolution Plan' filed

by 'Liberty House Group Pte. Ltd.'- ("Liberty House" for short). The

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Principal

Bench, New Delhi, having noticed the relevant facts, allowed the

application. I.A for approval of plan under Section 31 was permitted to

be withdrawn. However, while passing such order, keeping in view of

Contd/-..............

-2-

the conduct of the 'Liberty House', the Adjudicating Authority saddled a

cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- for payment in favour of the 'Corporate Debtor'.

2. The grievance of the 'Liberty House' is not against the part of the

order whereunder the interlocutory application was allowed to be

withdrawn. The grievance is only against the part of the impugned order

wherein observations has been made against the 'Liberty House' and

cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been imposed.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of

the record, we find that the Adjudicating Authority while allowing the

application filed by the 'Resolution Professional' for withdrawal of the

earlier I.A. No. 823(PB)/ 2018 made certain observations relating to the

action of the 'Liberty House'. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid

narration of relevant facts should not be treated as finding or

observation of the Adjudicating Authority.

4. In the aforesaid background, as the Appellant has also not

challenged the substantive part of the impugned order for withdrawal of

the application, we are not inclined to interfere with the substantive

part of the said order. However, we make it clear that any observations

made against the 'Liberty House' should not be construed to be a

finding of the Adjudicating Authority against the Appellant nor will

amount to holding the Appellant ineligible for filing any 'Resolution

Plan' in future in some other case or the plan, if any already submitted

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 08 of 2019 -3-

in some other case. The cost imposed is converted as cost imposed by

the Adjudicating Authority as litigation cost payable by the 'Liberty

House' in favour of the 'Corporate Debtor'. The order dated 5th

December, 2018 stands modified/ clarified to the extent above.

5. The time spent during the pendency of the appeal i.e. from 14th

December, 2018 till today i.e., 8th March, 2019 should be excluded for

the purpose of counting total period of 180 days or 270 days.

The appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and

directions. No cost.

(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson

(Justice A.I.S. Cheema) Member(Judicial) Ar/g

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 08 of 2019