Mideast Pipeline Products Through Its ... vs Pratim Bayal Resolution Professional ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1087 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal's reasoning rests on the following: where a fresh resolution process has commenced after the impugned order and the appellant is participating in it, the Tribunal will not examine the issues raised in the appeal concerning the earlier process, and in the absence of any error in the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the appellant's prayers, no interference with that order is warranted; the appellant and other stakeholders remain free to take such steps as are permissible in law in relation to the fresh process.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Mideast Pipeline Products Through Its Sole Proprietor, Maninder Singh ...Appellant Versus Pratim Bayal, RP, Nandini Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Ms. Pooja Mehra Saigal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ishank Jha, Mr. Nivesh Dixit, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Partha Sil, Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Advocate for R-2.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
07.08.2025: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This appeal has
been filed against order dated 11.06.2025 by which I.A. No.812/KB/2025
filed by the Appellant has been rejected. The Appellant in the application has
made various prayers which have been extracted by the Adjudicating
Authority in Para 3 of the order, which is as follows:
"3. By way of this application the Applicant Mideast Pipeline Products through its sole Proprietor, Shri Maninder Singh would seek the following relief:
a) Direction upon the Respondent No. 1 to forthwith provide the details of the availability of the assets and equipment mentioned in the Information Memorandum and Addendum Note to the same;
b) Direction upon the respondent No. 1 to forthwith furnish a Report before this Tribunal regarding the
Cont'd..../ availability of each of the equipment lying at the various sites of the Corporate Debtor (in CIRP) which are mentioned in the Information Memorandum and Addendum Note to the same;
c) Direction be made extending the time for the Applicant to put in its revised offer within 7 days from the date on which the confirmation of the availability of the equipment and machineries mentioned in the Information Memorandum and Addendum Note to the same are made available to the Applicant;
d) Ad-interim orders in terms of prayers above;"
2. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the Appellant as well as the
Resolution Professional came to the conclusion that Applicant has been given
sufficient time to put in its Plan/revised offer, but it has failed to come up
with any plan. The said observation has been made in Para 16 of the order,
which is as follows:
"16. In view of such and having noted that Mideast Pipeline Products has been given sufficient time to put in its Plan/revised offer, but it has miserably failed to come up with any, we dismiss the present IA (IB)No. 812/KB/2025, as we feel that the said entity Mideast Pipeline Products does not deserve any further extension of time having noted absence of any extenuating circumstances to permit Mideast Pipeline Products to seek extension any further."
3. The Adjudicating Authority also permitted the Resolution Professional
to come up with appropriate application in accordance with law.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1087 of 2025 2 of 3
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant that the Resolution
Professional has issued an Addendum in which Addendum also no
clarification with regard to existence of assets was made and several
disclaimers were made in the Addendum. It is submitted that the Resolution
Professional is required to give details as required by CIRP Regulations, 2016
and the disclaimer are not in accordance with the law and Regulations.
5. Learned counsel for the CoC submits that after the order passed by the
Adjudicating Authority fresh Form-G has been issued and several Applicants
including the Appellant has filed their Expression of Interest.
6. In view of the fact that fresh process has commenced, in which the
Appellant has already participating, we see no reason to enter the various
issues sought to be raised by the Appellant in the present appeal. We do not
find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the prayers
as was made by the Appellant in the application. The order of the
Adjudicating Authority does not warrant any interference, however, it shall be
open for the Appellant and other stakeholders to take such steps as
permissible in law with regard to the fresh process. Appeal is dismissed with
observations as above.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1087 of 2025 3 of 3
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