M/S Stable Packaging Private Limited vs Mr. Suresh Kumar Jain

Stable Packaging Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Suresh Kumar Jain ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Amish Tandon, Mr. Uddhav Khanna, Advocates.

For Respondent: Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Mr. Parthvi Ahuja and Ms. Prapti Singh, Advocates for RP.

ORDER

(Virtual Mode)

28.01.2022: Heard counsel for the Appellant as well as learned counsel

appearing for the Resolution Professional. This Appeal has been filed against

the order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National

Company Law Tribunal) New Delhi, Court-IV by which the application filed by

the Appellant being I.A. No. 2880/2021 has been rejected. The Appellant

claims that he has an Agreement to Sell from the Corporate Debtor dated

06.08.2019. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was initiated on

19.09.2019. Appellant filed an application for exclusion of property from the

assets of the Corporate Debtor. In the Application being I.A. No. 2880/2021

following prayers have been made:

"A. Issue an appropriate order or direction to the Resolution Professional to exclude the commercial property bearing No. SCO/24 in Wave Courtyard,

Cont'd.../ 2

Wave One Project, Sector 18 from the insolvency resolution plan of the Corporate Debtor;

Alternatively;

B. Issue an appropriate order or direction to the Resolution Professional to make the payment of legitimate outstanding of the Application of Rsl2,30,04,651/- with interest @12% p.a. from 08.08.2019 to the date of realization in accordance with law and within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Tribunal;

C. Any other or further order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed."

2. Adjudicating Authority has rejected the application filed by the

Appellant. The Appellant claims to be aggrieved by the order of rejection

passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

3. Learned counsel for Appellant submits that he had supplied to the

Resolution Professional all relevant documents. The transaction has been

found to be preferential in nature and Appellant has been recognized as

Operational Creditor.

4. The Appellant admittedly has not been holding the property as owner

which is claimed to be excluded from the process. We, thus, do not find any

error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting application of the

Appellant for exclusion of the property.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 84 of 2022 3

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant lastly contended that his claim is yet

to be verified by the Resolution Professional. It was also submitted that

resolution plan has not yet been approved. Counsel for the Resolution

Professional submits that even the claim is not yet been filed by the Appellant.

We, thus, are of the view that no error has been committed by the Adjudicating

Authority in dismissing the application filed by the Appellant. We find no merit

in the Appeal. Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 84 of 2022