M/S Bhagyanagar Hotel Pvt Ltd vs Sainath Estate Pvt Ltd
- CitationCivil Appeal No. 6332/2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Supreme Court having dismissed the civil appeal against the Tribunal's judgment, a Tribunal application seeking reopening of the company appeal for hearing afresh on merits is misconceived and cannot be entertained, since the appeal stands dismissed and the Supreme Court's order does not permit re-hearing. Where the Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal, grants liberty only to seek time to vacate premises, that liberty is confined to the terms expressed in its order; the Tribunal's role in such an application is to give effect to the Supreme Court's directions, and it may dispose of the application on the undertaking recorded by the appellant, without examining the technicalities of the pleadings, with the result that no further extension of time is to be granted.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) IA No. 471/2024 Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 13/2024 (IA Nos.52, 199 & 473/2024) In the matter of: M/s Bhagyanagar Hotel Pvt Ltd. ... Appellant V Krishna Mohan Gollamudi, Liquidator of M/s. Sai Nath Estates Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent
Present : For Appellant : Mr. E. Om. Prakash, Senior Advocate For Mr. Puneet Yadav, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Avinash Desai, Senior Advocate For Mr. Amir Bavani, Advocate ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 05.06.2024:
The Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 13/2024 stood finally
adjudicated by this Tribunal, vide its Judgment dated 29.04.2024. The said
judgment was carried to challenge before the Honourable Apex Court, in the Civil
Appeal No. 6332/2024 M/s. Bhaguamagar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Mohan
Gollamudi (Liquidator of Sainath Estates Pvt. Ltd.). The Honourable Apex Court
while dismissing the Civil Appeal has passed the following orders: -
"We do not find any good ground and reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and hence, the appeal is dismissed.
It is stated on behalf of the appellant - M/s. Bhagyanagar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. that the appellant would like to move an application before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal/Liquidator to give the appellant three months' time to close the running hotel, and that the appellant is agreeable to reasonable terms which may be fixed by the NCLAT/Liquidator.
__________________________________________________________________________ IA No. 471/2024 (Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 13/2024 Page 1 of 3 The letter/application requesting for time, may be moved to the respondent - Liquidator/NCLAT. In case such request is made the same will be considered in accordance with law."
The Honourable Apex Court while dismissing Appeal, had granted liberty
to the Appellant therein to approach this Tribunal by filing an appropriate
application for seeking an extension of time, to close the running hotel, which was
subject matter of the Appeal, as it was adjudicated by this Tribunal.
In compliance, thereto the Appellant has filed IA No. 471/2024, praying for
reopening of the Company Appeal, to be heard afresh on merits. Infact this
Application preferred by the Appellant is mis-conceived and contrary on the face
of it to the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court dated 17.05.2024, since the
Appeal stood dismissed by the Honourable Apex Court. Therefore, the Appeal
cannot be permitted to be reopened to be heard afresh. Thus, IA No. 471/2024
being misconceived would stand dismissed.
As far as IA No. 472/2024 is concerned, as preferred by the Appellant, he
has prayed that he may be granted 3 months' time further to vacate the premises in
furtherance of the Order of the Honourable Apex Court dated 17.05.2024 The said
Application had been moved by the Appellant, for various contentions as contained
therein. This Tribunal at this stage is not required to dwell into those nicety of
pleading and technicalities of law for extension of time, but rather it has to be take
the decision, on the directions as expressed by the Honourable Apex Court
in its judgment dated 17.05.2024. Owing to the liberty granted by the
__________________________________________________________________________ IA No. 471/2024 (Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 13/2024 Page 2 of 3 Honourable Apex Court, the IA No. 472/2024 is being disposed of with an
undertaking recorded by the Appellant, through their Counsel, that they would
ensure to vacate the premises within 3 months from today positively and it is made
clear that henceforth no further extension would be granted by this Tribunal. The
Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Appellant has filed another
IA No. 473/2024 for staying the orders dated 04.12.2023 and 07.05.2024, as passed
by the NCLT during the pendency of this present Application. It is made clear that
no independent orders are required to be passed in the same in view of the above
order passed on IA No. 472/2024.
[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)
[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical)
RO/TM
__________________________________________________________________________ IA No. 471/2024 (Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 13/2024 Page 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