Mr. Kashi Viswanathan Sivaraman ... vs Respondents
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 216-217 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The period during which the Auction Purchaser was granted extension of time by the Adjudicating Authority, and during which the liquidation process could not be completed because plant and machinery remained on the land forming part of the sale, is to be excluded from the computation of the time limit for completing the liquidation process, where the delay was occasioned by orders of the Adjudicating Authority and the auction could not be finalised for reasons attributable to those orders and the pendency of related appeals.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Kashi Viswanathan Sivaraman ...Appellant
Versus . ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Aditya Gauri, Mr. Amor Vivek and Jayesh, Advocates. For Respondent:
ORDER
02.03.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
2. This Appeal has been filed by the Liquidator challenging the Order dated
23rd December, 2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority on I.A. No. 6308 of
2022. The Liquidator filed I.A. No. 6308 of 2022 making following two prayers:
"1. From 19.01.2021 till 22.01.2022 when extension of time was granted by Adjudicating Authority to the Auction Purchaser of part & machinery.
2 2. From 30.03.2022 till 18.10.2022 when stay granted by Hon'ble NCLAT was in operation."
3. Learned Adjudicating Authority has granted exclusion of period from
30.02.2022 till 18.10.2022 which was prayer No. 2 however the Adjudicating
Authority has refused to grant exclusion of time from 19.01.2021 till 22.01.2022.
4. Learned Counsel for the Liquidator submits that vide Order dated
19.01.2021, time was granted to only 01.02.2021 which period was extended till
22.01.2022. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in view of the
extension, the Liquidator was unable to complete the process of liquidation since
plant machinery was not removed on the land which was also subject matter of
the sale. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that ultimately this Tribunal
by Order dated 18.10.2022 had decided Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 318-319
of 2022, 728 of 2022 filed by the two Successful Auction Purchaser challenging
the Order of the Adjudicating Authority which was decided on 18.10.2022
subsequently an application was filed for permitting the Successful Auction
Purchaser to deposit the bank guarantee instead of making payment which was
rejected on 22.11.2022 by this Tribunal which order has also been affirmed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIVIL APPEAL No. 548 of 2023 on 10.02.2023.
5. In view of the subsequent facts and the fact that matter was pending
consideration in the appeal and due to orders passed by the Adjudicating
Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 216-217 of 2023 3
Authority, the auction could not be finalized. The Appellant was also entitled for
exclusion of period from 19.01.2021 till 22.01.2022. We thus allow this appeal
and grant exclusion of time from 19.01.2021 till 22.01.2022. Appeal is disposed
of, accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
Basant/nn
Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 216-217 of 2023
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