Manish Gupta vs Respondent
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 466 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal will not decide, at this stage, the merits of a dispute over the voting on resolution plans that is pending before the Adjudicating Authority; that question is for the Adjudicating Authority to decide first and is not examined by the Appellate Tribunal in an appeal of this kind. Where the record shows that viable resolution plans were received and were under consideration by the Committee of Creditors, the Appellate Tribunal may remit the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to take an overall view of the matter, to consider whether such plans are genuinely viable, and, if the interests of justice so require, to grant time so that a resolution may be reached if possible, the exercise of that judicial discretion being for the Adjudicating Authority alone and uninfluenced by the Appellate Tribunal's observations.
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. 466 of 2021 IN THE MATTER OF: Manish Gupta Resolution Professioal of JC World Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. B-1/504, Tulip Purple, Sector 69, Gurgaon, Haryana - 122101 ...Appellant.
Versus ............ ...Respondent.
For Appellant: Mr. Vaibhav Tyagi, Mr. Pooja M Saigal, Mr. Shantanu Chaturvedi and Mr. Anshul Bajaj, Advocates. For Intervenor: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
20.07.2021 Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. It is stated that
affidavit in terms of directions issued earlier has been filed. It is stated that
the Appellant has received viable Resolution Plans which were received after
the period of "Expression of Interest" was over but Committee of Creditors
condoned the delay to take up the Resolution Plans. It is stated that the
erstwhile promoter however, behind the back of the Appellant has taken a
direction from the Adjudicating Authority seeking stay on the voting of
Resolution Plans and thus this CIRP has got struck.
2. The Learned Counsel submits that the Appellant has given particulars
regarding various steps taken. It is stated that the exclusion sought was for
period from 01st July, 2020 to 09th August, 2020 but the exclusion given was
only from 25th March, 2020 to 30th June, 2020 and hence the Appeal. 2
3. Learned Sr. Counsel-Mr. Krishnendu Datta appears on behalf of the
erstwhile promoters and submits that the Adjudicating Authority has already
looked into the application filed by the erstwhile promoters of entertaining
Resolution Plans after the period of "Expression of Interest" and granted stay
to the voting giving directions that no further steps should be taken.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant is submitting that the promoters
did not give opportunity to the Appellant and the notice of the application was
not served to the Appellant. The Learned Sr. Counsel submits that this
statement of the Appellant is not correct.
5. How the Application was filed and the dispute raised in the Application
with regard to the voting is a matter yet to be decided by the Adjudicating
Authority and we need not inter into the same.
6. However, considering the fact that the Appellant has submitted that
there are viable Resolution Plans which were received and were being
considered by CoC, we remit back the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to
take an overall view of the matter and consider if there are really viable plans
and if it finds interest of justice so requires grant some time so that resolution
could be reached, if possible. The judicial discretion is left to the Adjudicating
Authority to be exercised without being influenced by our observations.
6. With these observations, the present Appeal stands disposed of.
[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] The Officiating Chairperson
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) Basant B./gc.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 466 of 2021
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