Mr. Bhavik Rupapara vs Uttar Gujrat Vij Company Limited ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2249 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning rests on the following: where the Adjudicating Authority has not yet decided a pending application, and the appellate forum does not pass any finding on the merits of the service question, the appellate forum will not determine the disputed issue of service on the basis of an affidavit and postal tracking material, leaving that issue to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority when the matter is heard again. Adverse observations made by the Adjudicating Authority against a liquidator, which are not necessary for the decision of the matter before it, are to be read as not adverse to the liquidator in any subsequent proceeding, and the appellate forum may so direct without deciding the underlying facts.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Bhavik Rupapara, Liquidator of Nami Steel Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Uttar Gujrat Vij Company Ltd. (UGVCL) ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kushal Bansal, Mr. Anish Ahlawat, Advocates. For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
20.12.2024: Affidavit of service filed by the Appellant, as directed earlier,
is taken on record.
2. This Appeal has been filed against order dated 24.09.2024 passed by
NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench in IA No.982/AHM/2024. This appeal has been
filed by the Liquidator. The limited grievance raised is that the Adjudicating
Authority has made adverse observations against the Liquidator that service
has not been properly done upon the Respondent and some other
observations.
3. Affidavit of service which was filed before the Adjudicating Authority
has been brought on the record which indicate that service was effected by
email as well as through postal service and the tracking report which has
been brought on record indicate that items were delivered to UGVCL. We are
of the view that the issue regarding service may be taken up before the
Cont'd.../ 2
Adjudicating Authority when matter is heard again. We only observe that the
observations made against the Liquidator in the impugned order may not be
treated as adverse to the Liquidator in any proceeding.
4. Learned counsel for the Liquidator submits that only one counsel, Mr.
Masoom Shah, appears for the Liquidator, hence, observations on counsel for
the Liquidator were also not required to be made. We record the aforesaid
submission made by Liquidator that only one counsel appeared and was
heard for the Appellant.
5. With regard to observations made by the Adjudicating Authority
regarding liquidation process being conducted by the Liquidator, the
Adjudicating Authority has directed the Liquidator to be present on the next
date of hearing. It is open for the Liquidator to explain the process taken by
the Liquidator in the proceeding.
6. The Application having been listed for further consideration on
17.12.2024 and not yet decided, it is open for the Appellant to make all
submissions, when matter is heard again. With these observations, the
appeal is disposed of.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2249 of 2024
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