Mis Paisalo Digital Limited vs M/S Techno Forge Limited And Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 805 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Committee of Creditors has resolved not to pursue a preferential transaction application because the amount sought under it has already been deposited by the ex-management, the Adjudicating Authority may treat the application as having become infructuous, and the Appellate Tribunal will not interfere with that closure where the facts show the claimed amount has been paid.
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) (Ins) No. 805 of 2023 IN THE MATTER OF: Paisalo Digital Ltd. Formerly known as S.E. Investments Ltd. ...Appellant Vs. Techno Forge Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. P.Nagesh, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Harshal Kumar, For Respondent: Mr. Atul Sharma, Ms. Aditi Sharma, Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Mr. Shreyans Shah, RP
ORDER
13.07.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 03.05.2023 by which
order, the Adjudicating Authority has held that the application filed u/s 43 has
become infructuous. It appears that in the application IA No. 947/2020 filed u/s
43 the amount involved was Rs. 2,02,55,665/-.
2. The Ex-management made an offer to the 'Committee of Creditors' (CoC)
to deposit the said amount which was accepted by the CoC and that Resolution
was passed not to proceed with Section 43 application.
3. Adjudicating Authority after hearing the Learned Counsel for the
'Resolution Professional' (RP) and other Counsels appearing, took the view that
nothing survives after the amount was offered.
4. Shri Nagesh, Learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order
contends that the application for preferential transaction ought to have been
finally decided.
5. It is submitted that mere payment of amount, the application could not
have been held to become infructuous.
6. We have considered the submission of the Learned Counsel for the parties
and peruse the record.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 805 of 2023 1
7. In the facts of the present case, the CoC in its decision passed a Resolution
not to proceed with the preferential transaction application since the amount
which was involved in the preferential application has already been deposited.
8. It is further submitted by the Learned Counsel for the RP that Plan
approval application is pending for last two years.
9. In the facts of the present case, when the application for preferential
transaction has been closed by the Adjudicating Authority, we see no reason to
entertain this appeal. The Appeal is disposed of.
While considering the Plan approval application, parties are at liberty to
raise all the objections.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
ss/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 805 of 2023 2
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