Mahipal Trading Company Through Its ... vs Mataji Dyeing Mills Pvt Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 957 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is disposed of on the footing that, because the corporate debtor is already undergoing a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated by another operational creditor, a fresh Section 9 application against the same corporate debtor would not be warranted even if the appeal were allowed; the appellant's remedy is confined to filing a claim before the Interim Resolution Professional, to be considered for admission or filed within the time prescribed under the Regulations.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Mahipal Trading Company Through its Sole Proprietor Mr. Mahipal Mehta ....Appellant Vs. Mataji Dyeing Mills Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent
Present:
Appellant: Mr. Naresh Kumar Sejvani, Advocate.
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode) 05.11.2020: Application of Appellant- 'Operational Creditor' filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 came to be dismissed at the hands of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench, Court-2, primarily on the ground that the same was not maintainable inasmuch as the same was filed not by a person but by a firm.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the firm is represented by its sole proprietor. The proprietor is a "person" who filed the same. Even if the name of the firm was an unnecessary surplusage, the same could have been struck out but the proprietor being a "person" was competent to maintain the application.
While we were considering the issuance of notice, learned counsel for the Appellant brought to our notice the fact that the Respondent- 'Corporate Debtor' is already undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated by another Operational Creditor.
Contd/-..............
-2- In view of the same, the initiation of fresh Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the same Corporate Debtor, even if this appeal is allowed, would not be warranted and the Appellant- 'Operational Creditor' would be entitled only to file a claim.
We accordingly dispose of this appeal with the observations that in case the Appellant- 'Operational Creditor' has filed a claim, the same may be considered for admission by the 'Interim Resolution Professional' and if the Appellant is yet to file the same, he may file the same within time as may be prescribed under the Regulations.
Copy of this order be sent to the Adjudicating Authority for information.
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Acting Chairperson
[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
AR/g
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 957 of 2020
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