M/S Kew Precision Parts Private Limited vs M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd

Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Kunal Sachdeva, Mr. Prakhar Mithal, Advocate.

For Respondent: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocates.

ORDER

15.03.2023: This Appeal has been filed against order dated 23.02.2023

passed by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 6309/2022. By order dated

06.09.2019 Section 7 petition was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority,

aggrieved by which an appeal was filed which appeal was allowed by order of

this Tribunal dated 08.01.2020, against which order Civil Appeal No. 2176 of

2020 was filed by the Respondent - Financial Creditor - Kotak Mahindra Bank

Ltd. which has been allowed by the order dated 05.08.2022. Operating portion

is in para 71 of the judgment, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to the following

effect:

"71. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the NCLAT is set aside to the extent that the CIRP proceedings have been closed. The Adjudicating Authority shall consider the

Cont'd.../ -2-

application for CIRP afresh, in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made above, after giving the Appellant and the Respondent opportunity to file additional affidavits disclosing documents/additional affidavit in response."

2. Consequent to the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 05.08.2022,

application under Section 7 stood revived which is to be heard and decided in

pursuance of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. Appellant filed an application under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 before

the Adjudicating Authority praying for dismissal of the petition, which has

been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order.

4. We are of the view that the application under Rule 11 was misconceived,

all issues are to be decided when the Section 7 application is heard and

decided. We do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority

rejecting Rule 11 application. With these observations, Appeal is dismissed.

5. We make it clear that it is open for both the parties to raise all the

contentions as permissible in law.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 305 of 2023