Mr. Mukesh Mangale & Ors vs Mr. Shailesh Verma Resolution ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1271 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeals are rendered infructuous where the order under challenge has been overtaken by a subsequent order of the Adjudicating Authority that restores the corporate insolvency resolution process and thereby removes the very basis on which the impugned approval rested; in such circumstances the issues raised in the appeal require no consideration and the appeal is dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to revive should a fresh occasion arise.
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 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1271 of 2023 IN THE MATTER OF: Mukesh Mangale & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Shailesh Verma ...Respondents Resolution Professional of Lavasa Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Ashish Choudhary, Mr. Abhishek Arora and Mr, Akash Agarwal, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Vaijayant Paliwal, Ms. Charu Bansal, Advocates for R1. Mr. Dhruva Gandhi, Mr. Abhishek Kale, Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Mr. Vivek Dwivedi, Mr. Nevil Chopra, Mr. Aman Pathak, Mr. Sumeet Mishra, Advocates for R2. Mr. Naman Shukla, Mr. A.K. Shukla and Mr. Yasharth Shukla, Advocates for Union Bank of India. Mr. Lakshya, Advocate for R5.
WITH Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1318 of 2023 & I.A. No. 4660 of 2023 IN THE MATTER OF: Renu Kapoor & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Lavasa Corporation Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Utsav Trivedi and Ms. Shivani Bhushan, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Vaijayant Paliwal, Ms. Charu Bansal, Advocates for R1. Mr. Dhruva Gandhi, Mr. Abhishek Kale, Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Mr. Vivek Dwivedi, Mr. Nevil Chopra, Mr. Aman Pathak, Mr. Sumeet Mishra, Advocates for R4. Mr. Naman Shukla, Mr. A.K. Shukla and Mr. Yasharth Shukla, Advocates for Union Bank of India.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
16.10.2024: These two appeals have been filed against the same order
dated 21.07.2023 by which order the resolution plan approval application I.A.
No. 1007 of 2023 was allowed.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing for the resolution professional as well as the SRA
has submitted that by a subsequent order dated 06.09.2024 passed by
Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 1956/2024 and I.A. No. 2520/2024 has
allowed and restored the CIRP of corporate debtor and fresh process has
started and fresh EOI has been issued.
3. Ld. Counsel for the resolution professional has submitted that he has
already challenged that order by means of an appeal. When the very basis of
the order which was under challenged its appeal has been knocked out by
subsequent order, the issues raised in the appeal needs no consideration and
taking note of the subsequent order we hold that these two appeals have
become infructuous.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) Nos. 1271 & 1318 of 2023 2 of 3 Hence, appeals are dismissed as infructuous with liberty to revive if any
occasion occurs arises.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) harleen/NN
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) Nos. 1271 & 1318 of 2023 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