Maxim Infrastructure And Real Estate ... vs For Appellant: Mr. Prashant Mishra
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1473 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's order rests on a single line of reasoning: where the sole ground on which an Adjudicating Authority declined to entertain an application (that a related matter was pending before the Appellate Tribunal) has ceased to exist because the appellate proceedings have been decided, the impugned order refusing to entertain the application is liable to be set aside and the application remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration on its merits after hearing the parties.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Maxim Infrastructure and Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ....Appellants Vs. For Appellant: Mr. Prashant Mishra, Advocate
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
05.04.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellants.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.11.2021 passed
by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Guwahati
Bench, Guwahati by which the Adjudicating Authority has refused to
consider an Application filed under Section 230-232 of the Companies Act,
2013 on the ground that the matter relating to Resolution Plan approved by
the Adjudicating Authority is pending before the NCLAT.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the two Appeals
which have been referred to by the Adjudicating Authority are Company
Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1468 of 2019 and Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1473
of 2019 which have been decided by our judgment of the date. He submits
that the Appeals having being decided today, the reason for refusing to
entertain the Application is no longer available and the matter be remitted 2
back to the Adjudicating Authority to consider afresh Application filed under
Sections 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 for arrangement of demerger.
4. We are of the view that in view of the decision of the Company Appeal
(AT) (Ins.) No. 1468 of 2019 and Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1473 of
2019 of the date, the reason given by the Adjudicating Authority is no longer
in existence. Hence, the order impugned deserves to be set aside and is
hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to
consider the Application afresh and take a decision after hearing the parties.
5. The Appeal is allowed to the above extent.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
[Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)
Anjali/nn
Comp. App. (AT) No. 09 of 2022
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