Lok Nath Sharma vs Kuldeep Verma
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.195 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Liquidator has invited schemes in a liquidation and a scheme has been validly rejected on its merits, the prayer to direct the Liquidator to reconsider that scheme, or to restart the scheme-invitation process, is not sustainable merely because the adjudicating authority had observed that the proponent of the rejected scheme was ineligible to submit it; the scheme-invitation process does not need to be repeated where the scheme of the appellant has been rejected on valid grounds.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Lok Nath Sharma ...Appellant
Versus
Kuldeep Verma Liquidator K S Oils Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Nikhil Kumar and Ms. Dacchita Shahi, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Vivek Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate.
ORDER
20.03.2023: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has
been filed against order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the Adjudicating
Authority by which IA/47(MP)2022 filed by the workmen of the Corporate
Debtor has been rejected. The IA/47(MP)2022 was filed by the workmen under
Section 60 Sub-section (5) against the Liquidator seeking directions to the
Liquidator for convening the meeting of Stakeholder Consultation Committee
to consider the scheme dated 24.02.2022 of Jammu Pigments and to restrict
the Liquidator from proceeding with sale of the Corporate Debtor. The Scheme
which was filed by the Jammu Pigments could not be approved and was
rejected by the same order dated 06.01.2023, against which order Jammu
Pigments has also filed an appeal being Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 188 of
2023 which has been dismissed by this Tribunal on 17.03.2023.
Cont'd.../ -2-
2. The prayers made by the Appellant in the present Appeal was to consider
the scheme of Jammu Pigments which was filed under Section 230. This
Court already having found that the rejection of the scheme of Jammu
Pigments was on valid grounds, we see no reason to issue any direction as
prayed in the Appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the process which was
undertaken by the Liquidator, in view of the observations made by the
Adjudicating Authority in Para 18 of the impugned order, was not in
accordance with law. It is submitted that it having found that the propounder
of the Scheme is not eligible to submit the scheme, the entire process has to
run afresh.
4. We are not convinced to accept this submission of the Appellant. When
the scheme was invited by the Liquidator, the Appellant as well as all other
applicants were entitle to file scheme and the scheme under Section 230 filed
by the Appellant having been rejected, there is no occasion to direct the
Liquidator to again start the process. We see no reason to entertain this
Appeal. Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 195 of 2023
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