Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jain vs Divyanshu Walai S/O Late Liquidator ...

Mukesh Kumar Jain, ...Appellant Liquidator Trans Gulf Frozen Food Containers Pvt. Ltd.

Versus

Divyanshu Walia ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: For Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli, Mr. Vaibhav Mendiratta, Advocates with Mr. Divyanshu Glolia son of Late Navjit Singh.

ORDER

21.04.2023: This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated

07.02.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority disposing of I.A. No. 4861 of

2022.

2. One Late Mr. Navjit Singh was appointed as Liquidator of the Corporate

Debtor who died on 12th May, 2022. The New Liquidator filed this I.A. No. 4861

of 2022 against the son of the deceased liquidator seeking direction to hand

over all the documents/records pertaining to the corporate debtor. The

Adjudicating Authority while passing the order has noticed the Reply given by

the son of the Liquidator and in the replies, details of documents sought by

the new Liquidator has been handed over to the present Liquidator, after

recording the observation, the Application has been disposed of. -2-

3. Learned Counsel for the Liquidator submits that the documents which

were in the possession of the deceased Liquidator are required to be handed

over to the present liquidator for carrying out liquidation proceedings.

4. We have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the

record.

5. Whatever the documents were asked for from the son of the deceased

liquidator have been given in the Replies submitted by the son as has been

noticed by the Adjudicating Authority, we see no reason to find any fault with

the order of the Adjudicating Authority disposing of the Application. It is

always open for the present Liquidator to approach the ex-management of the

Corporate Debtor for any documents as required and not received by the

Liquidator. There is no personal liability of the son of the deceased Liquidator

to supply documents as was claimed by the Liquidator which could not be

located in the papers. Furthermore, whatever the documents were there with

the son of the deceased liquidator has already been submitted.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant sought to contend that there is a Car

in possession of the son of the deceased Liquidator which should also be

handed over.

7. When we look into the prayers of the Application as has been noticed by

the Adjudicating Authority, there is no such prayer made in the Application.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent denies that there is any such Car in the

possession of the son. When there is no such prayer in the Application made,

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 455/2023 -3-

how the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Car should be handed

over to the present Liquidator, we failed to see.

8. The Application filed by the present Liquidator was wholly misconceived

and has rightly been disposed of.

The Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Basant/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 455/2023