M/S Dianka Industries India Pvt. Ltd vs Mr. Vivek Parti Liquidator Of M/S Nice ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1550 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The adjudicating authority erred in declining to consider an auction purchaser's application for concessions to run a going-concern unit merely because the liquidation order itself was under challenge in a pending appeal; the pendency of such an appeal, absent any stay, does not by itself disable the adjudicating authority from considering and granting such concessions as may be legally permissible so as to ensure that a sale effected by the liquidator is not rendered ineffective.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Dianka Industries India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Vivek Parti Liquidator of Nice Projects Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Ms. Purti Gupta, Ms. Heena George and Ms. Sunidhi Sah, Advocates.
For Respondents : Ms. Prachi Johri and Ms. Mrigangi Parul, Advocates for R-2.
Mr. Karan Gandhi, Advocate for Liquidator.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
16.10.2025 : This appeal is preferred challenging the order of the
adjudicating authority in I.A. No. 2867/ND/2025 which the present appellant
as auction purchaser of a going concern has preferred seeking certain
concessions etc vis-à-vis running the unit.
2. In its order the adjudicating authority has taken a view that inasmuch
as the very order of liquidation itself is under challenge in CA 1376/2024, it
may not be appropriate for it to consider the appellant's prayer for grant of
concessions.
3. Ms. Prachi Johri accepts notice on behalf of R-2. R-2 is the suspended
director of the corporate debtor whose appeal in CA No. 1376/2024 is
pending.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Despite appeal in CA No. 2867/2024 having been filed by the second
respondent/the suspended director of the corporate debtor is pending, the
liquidator had proceeded to auction the asset of the corporate debtor as a
going concern since there was no order of stay. If the auction can take place
and sale certificate can also be granted to the appellant, necessary that the
appellant is not hamstrung in running the unit. Otherwise it will be like giving
somebody a gift without permission to enjoy it. In this case it is not even a
gift but something has been paid as consideration.
6. In the circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to consider the prayer
of the appellant to grant such concession as may be legally permissible to
ensure that auction sale of the unit which has been made by the liquidator is
not rendered ineffective. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[Justice N. Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1550 of 2025 2 of 2
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