M/S. Shivalaya Construction Co Pvt Ltd vs Anurag Kumar Sinha M/S Valecha ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Shivalaya Construction Co. Pvt Ltd ....Appellant

Vs.

Anurag Kumar Sinha, ....Respondent RP of Valecha Engineering Ltd.

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Anand Das, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Dhananjay Sud, Advocate for R-1/RP.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

17.04.2025: This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.02.2024

by which an application filed by the appellant bearing I.A No. 377/MB/2024

has been dismissed. The Tribunal dismissed the application with the following

observations:

"2. The present application is filed by the Applicant to direct the Respondent/RP to admit the claim of the Applicant. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the delay for filing the claim is 185 days. There is no prayer in the application for condonation of delay.

3. Ld. Counsel for the RP submits that the plan was approved by the CoC and the resolution plan application is filed before this Bench for approval.

4. This Bench observes that firstly the Applicant has not prayed for condonation of delay in his application, secondly the present application is filed by the Applicant at a belated stage when the plan approval is pending before the Adjudicating Authority. In view of the reasons stated supra, IA-377(MB)2024 is dismissed."

2. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the application bearing

I.A No. 377/MB/2024, the appellant has also made an alternative prayer. In -2-

this regard, he has referred to Prayer (3) in the application which read as

under:

"In the alternatively; to direct the Resolution Professional to reflect such entitlement of the Applicant in the resolution plan."

3. However, counsel for the respondent has submitted that this prayer was

not pressed before the Ld. Tribunal, therefore, the impugned order has been

passed only on the issue which has been raised by the appellant. It is further

submitted that the issue which was not raised before the Tribunal cannot be

raised in appeal.

4. We have pointedly asked counsel for the appellant as to whether the

alternate prayer was pressed before the Ld. Tribunal and the issue was argued

or not. In this regard, he has only referred to ground 9 (a) in which it is alleged

that the alternative prayer has been made in the application but the entire

grounds of appeal is silent as to whether the alternative prayer was actually

raised or pressed before the Ld. Tribunal. Since the appellant has not raised

this issue of alternate prayer before the Tribunal, therefore, it is not permitted

to raise this issue before this court.

5. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in

the submission made by the appellant, thus, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) SA/RR

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 715 of 2024