Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Mrs. Neeta Saha vs Shiv Nandan Sharma

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal23 November 2021

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The appeal against an interlocutory direction of the Adjudicating Authority is not entertained where the impugned order remains open to modification or clarification on a fresh application before that Authority, and the proceedings are still pending before it; the appellate forum declines to interfere at that stage and dismisses the appeal, leaving the appellant to seek relief before the Adjudicating Authority.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 952 of 2021IN THE MATTER OF:

Neeta Saha ...Appellant

Versus

Shiv Nandan Sharma ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Saigal Mehra, Mr. Akshay Chandra, Mr. Ranjyot Singh, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Ashish Makhija and Ms. Richa Singh, Advocates.

ORDER

(Virtual Mode)

23.11.2021: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Learned

Counsel for the Resolution Professional. This Appeal has been filed against order

dated 2nd November, 2021 passed in New I.A. 5004/2021 by the Adjudicating

Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Court-II. The

Adjudicating Authority by the said order has issued following directions:-

"Under such circumstance, we hereby direct the Applicant to provide the password of the email Id of the Corporate Debtor by tomorrow to the RP.

In the meantime, so far this Applicant is concerned, we hereby stay the execution of warrant of arrest till the next date of hearing. The Applicant is directed to extend all co-operation and support in handing over documents/information, vehicles etc. as requisitioned by the RP. List on 10th November, 2021."

Cont'd..../ 2

2. In so far as issuance of warrant of arrest of Applicant is concerned the

court has already stayed the process till the next date of hearing. Hence, no

grievance can be raised by the Appellant. The second submission of the Appellant

is regarding the direction to the Applicant to provide password of the email id of

the Corporate Debtor by tomorrow to the Resolution Professional. It is submitted

that the Applicant is not in knowledge of the password of the email id of the

Corporate Debtor. Learned Counsel for the Respondent refuted the submissions

made by Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

3. Be that as it may. The Application is still pending before the Adjudicating

Authority and it is open for the Applicant to approach the Adjudicating Authority

and submit appropriate application and ask for modification or clarification, if so

advised. In the above view, at this stage, we are not inclined to entertain this

Appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) Archana/nn.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 952 of 2021

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