Manoj Kunwar vs Yogesh Sethi And Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1641 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The extension of the liquidation period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is not open to interference where the liquidator's auction has already taken place and the remaining steps of the liquidation process must still be completed, since the extension is justified by the need to finish those steps. Pending applications concerning the liquidator, such as one seeking removal, should be disposed of by the Adjudicating Authority on the next listed date or as early as possible, and in any event before the liquidation is completed, so that the applicant's grievance is not rendered infructuous by the conclusion of the process.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Manoj Kunwar ....Appellant Vs.
Yogesh Sethi & Ors., ...Respondents Liquidator for SSMP Industries Ltd. & Anr.
For Appellant Mr. Sunil Kumar Rai, Mr. Ajay Charan, Advocates.
For Respondents Mr. Yogesh Jagia, Ms. Nitya Ahuja, Ms. Udita Dubey, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
03.11.2025: This Appeal has been filed against the order dated
28.08.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal) New Delhi Bench, Court-III by which Adjudicating Authority on an
application filed by the liquidator has extended the liquidation period from
01.09.2025 to 31.12.2025. The Adjudicating Authority in the order has
noticed that e-auction has taken place on 25.07.2025 to liquidate the entire
estate of the Corporate Debtor and sometime thus required to complete the
process, hence, extension has been granted till 31.12.2025. Aggrieved by the
order, this Appeal has been filed.
2. Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant has filed an IA
No.5634 of 2021 praying for removal of the liquidator which is although
pending for more than four years has not yet been considered. It is submitted 2
that the said application was also listed on 30.10.2025 but has now been
adjourned to 25.11.2025.
3. Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that application has been
adjourned to 25.11.2025 and it is open for the Appellant to press for disposal.
4. Appellant's submission is that the application for removal of the
liquidator should be decided at least within the time in which liquidation has
been extended.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that insofar as
the order extending liquidation, no error can be found in view of the fact that
auction has already been taken place on 25.07.2025 and process has to be
taken to complete. Insofar as grievance of the Appellant that his IA No.5634 of
2021 has not yet been heard, the said application is now fixed for 25.11.2025.
we are of the view that Adjudicating Authority shall endeavor to dispose of the
application on the next date fixed or as early as possible, before completion of
the liquidation.
6. With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Anjali/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1641 of 2025
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