Medisetty Venkata Rattaiah vs S Muthu Raju & Ors
- CitationCOMPANY APPEAL(AT)(INSOLVENCY) NO.451 OF 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The impugned interim order, which decided nothing and merely posted the application for orders, is not an order against which an appeal lies in substance; an appeal must be directed against an order that actually decided something, and a party cannot cure a time-barred challenge to an admission order by amending the appeal memo to attack earlier orders, since that attracts the question of limitation under the 30-day period in Section 61 (extendable by 15 days only on sufficient cause).
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
4. Spads Texiles Ltd 74-14-49, Yanamalakuduru Vijayawada 520007 Andhra Pradesh. Respondents
For Appellant:- Mr.A.S. Sathish Kumar, PCS.
For Respondents: - Mr. A. Lakshminarayan, Advocate for R2.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.451 of 2018 2
ORAL JUDGEMENT (7th FEBRUARY, 2019) Per: A.I.S. Cheema, J:
Heard PCS for the appellant. This appeal has been filed by the appellant who is one of the shareholders of 4th Respondent, corporate debtor, who filed this appeal against the interim order dated 26.7.20 18 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in IA No.249/2018 in CP(IB) 171/9/HDB/2017. A copy of that order is at Page 38 and reads as under:-
nder:-
"M "LA No.249/2018, listed today for hearing.
Counsel for respondent/Operational Creditor ftled counter. Heard both sides.
List the matter for orders on 07.08.2018.
2. The PCS accepts that the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code in short) was admitted on 1.6.2018. The appeal shows Appellant received copy of order dated 1.6.2018 on 9.6.2018. Present appeal filed on 8.8.2018. If it was to be filed against order dated 1.6.2018 would clearly attract question of limitation. It is stated that the appellant after order dated 1.6.20 18 filed IA No.249/2018 in NCLT on 6.7.20 18 to set aside order admitting the petition. Apparently the impugned order did not decide anything as such and on hearing the IA, Adjudicating Authority had simply posted the matter for orders.
3. It is stated that after the impugned order, subsequently on 10.8.2018 Adjudicating Authority passed orders rejecting the IA. The present appeal is not against the order dated 10.8.2018. The appellant attached that copy of the order with disposed application IA No.1229 of 2018 filed vide Diary No.6584 on 17.8.2018 which was basically application for substitution. As per Section 61 of I&B Code the period of appeal is 30 days which can be extended by the NCLAT by 15 days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause. The appellant has now filed IA No.68/2019 to amend the appeal memo to set aside all orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority in IA No.249/2018 including the order dated 1.6.2018. This IA No.68/2019 has been filed on 7.1.2019.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.451 of 2018 3
4. We do not think such IA No.68/20 19 can be allowed. The present appeal which is basically against the impugned order dated 26.7.2018 deserves to be rejected as the impugned order dated 26.7.2018 had not decided anything in particular. There is no reason to further entertain this appeal. Subsequent order dated 10.8.20 18 cannot be challenged by amending the introductory part of the appeal which again attracts question of limitation.
5. There is no substance in the appeal. The appeal is rejected. Interim applications stand disposed off.
(Justice A.I.S.Cheema) Member (Judicial)
(Mr. Balvinder Singh) Member (Technical) Bm/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.451 of 2018
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