M/S Kl Rathi Steels Limited vs Mr. Anshul Gupta
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 325 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order does not state any independent legal principle of its own: it disposes of the appeal on the respondent's concession that the impugned direction be set aside, and it rests on the factual premise that the scheme was approved by 100% of financial creditors, without articulating any rule as to when a Second Motion Petition is required. The only reasoning present is the Tribunal's acceptance of that concession and its direction that the Adjudicating Authority pass a fresh order in accordance with law. NO_RATIO: the disposal rests on counsel's concession and a bare direction to re-decide, with no legal reasoning stated in the text.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 325 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: KL Rathi steels Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Anshul Gupta, ...Respondents Liquidator of RGTL Industries Ltd. & Ors. Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Ms. Vatsala Kak and Mr. Raghav Dembla, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Harshit Khuse and Mr. Prafull Saini, Advocates for R-2/SBI Mr. Rishi Kapoor and Ms. Deboleena Dutta, Advocates for Liquidator.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
23.07.2024: Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as for
Respondent.
2. This appeal is against the order dated 04.01.2024 by which order the
Adjudicating Authority has directed the Applicant to file the Second Motion
Petition for approval of the Scheme.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Financial Creditor submits that
the Scheme proposed by the Applicant was approved by 100% Financial
Creditors, hence there was no requirement of the Second Motion Petition and
the Adjudicating Authority ought not to have directed for the Second Motion
Petition to be taken place and Application- I.A. No. 3488/2021 ought not to
have disposed of in that manner.
... contd...p/2..
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent candidly submitted that the Appeal
be allowed, the impugned order be set aside and the Adjudicating Authority be
directed to pass the order in I.A. No. 3488/2021 afresh.
5. Considering the above, we dispose of the appeal, revive I.A. No. 3488/21.
The direction issued by Adjudicating Authority for convening the Second
Motion of Petition is set aside. Let fresh order be passed in accordance with law
at an early date.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member(Technical) akc/Nn
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 325 of 2024 Page 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