Mr Narahari Vijay Sagar Reddy vs Akash Shinghal Liquidator
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2218 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority may approve a liquidation sale in favour of a successful auction purchaser subject to the outcome of a pending application, where that application has not been disposed of, without error; and any order passed on that pending application which is adverse to the purchaser leaves the purchaser free to seek appropriate remedy against it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Consortium of Narahari Vijay Sagar Reddy & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Akash Shinghal, Liquidator of Exclusive Overseas Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellants : Mr. Gautam Singhal, Mr. Rajat Choudhary and Ms. Bhilashi Chopra, Advocates.
For Respondent : Mr. R.K. Gupta and Mr. Swaralipi Deb Roy, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
09.12.2024 : This Appeal has been filed against an Order dated
27.09.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court-II) in I.A. No. 1836 of 2024 in C.P. No. (IB)-
1106/(ND)/2018, filed by the Successful Auction Purchaser.
2. We have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Gautam Singhal
who submits that in Paragraph 35 of the Order, Adjudicating Authority has
allowed the Application filed by the Liquidator approving the sale in favour of
the Successful Bidder subject to outcome of I.A. 3331/2024 which was filed
by the EPFO. Counsel for the Appellant submits that any amount which is to
be payable in the I.A. filed by the EPFO has to be paid by the Liquidator from
the liquidation estate and not by the Successful Auction Purchaser.
3. The Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned Order had only made the
approval of the Auction Purchaser subject to I.A. 3331/2024 which I.A. was
filed by the EPFO and still pending.
4. We do not find any error in the Order of the Adjudicating Authority
approving the auction sale in favour of the Appellant by disposing of the IA
1836/2024 and making the same subject to the pending IA. When the I.A.
3331/2024 was pending and the said IA has not been disposed of by the
Impugned Order, we do not find any error in the Order of the Adjudicating
Authority in the Impugned Order allowing the IA for closure of Liquidation
Process.
5. We however are of the view that, in event, any Order is passed in I.A.
3331/2024 which may be adverse to the interest of the Appellant, it is always
open for the Appellant to take appropriate remedy.
Subject to this observation, we dismiss the Appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 2218 of 2024 2 of 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