Lyka Labs Limited vs Mrs Priti Bhupesh Shah
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1759 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order contains a single stated line of reasoning: an appeal challenging a subsequent order that closed the proceedings is not maintainable in the absence of any challenge to the earlier order by which the proceedings were withdrawn, so no ground for interference is made out; and the closure of Section 7 proceedings does not preclude the appellant from pursuing remedies already initiated and available under law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Lyka Labs Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Mrs Priti Bhupesh Shah Since deceased ...Respondents Through her Legal Representatives & Ors.
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kartik Nagarkatti, Mr. Sanidhya Kumar, Ms. Aishwarya Modi Seth, Mr. Rashid Boatwalla and Ms. Garima Jain, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ayush J. Rajani, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
19.09.2024 : Heard Counsel for the Appellant as well as Counsel for the
Respondent.
2. This Appeal has been filed against an Order dated 11.07.2024 passed
by the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal,
Ahmedabad, Division Bench, Court - I). Adjudicating Authority passed an
Order withdrawing the CIRP Order dated 16.05.2024 and disposing the
Petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (for
short `The Code').
3. By the Order dated 16.05.2024, the Adjudicating Authority has directed
the amount of Rs. 81,15,000/- be deposited with Bank of Baroda in a Fixed Deposit. The Corporate Debtor had deposited the said amount, Adjudicating
Authority took Notice of that and withdrew the CIRP Proceedings and close
the Section 7 Application.
4. The said Order has been challenged in this Appeal.
5. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Gaurav Mitra appearing for the Appellant
submits that Appellant does not want the CIRP to begin and however they
have already filed suits for recovery which are proceeding.
6. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Abhijeet Sinha appearing for the Respondent
submits that when the Appellant is not aggrieved by the main Order
withdrawing the CIRP, there is nothing in the Appeal to be considered and
Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. We have considered the submissions of Counsel for the Parties and
perused the record.
8. From the Order dated 11.07.2024, which is subsequent Order closing
the CIRP in view of the deposit and release of the amount the earlier Order
16.05.2024 has been withdrawn by the Impugned Order. The CIRP has been
withdrawn which Order is not even been questioned before in this Appeal.
9. We are of the view that no grounds are made out to interfere with the
Order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. We however
observe that the closure of the Proceedings under Section 7 shall not preclude
the Appellant to pursue such remedies already initiated and proceeding as
available in the law.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1759 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6418 of 2024 2 of 3 With these observations, the Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1759 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6418 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