Mukesh Kumar Jain vs Navin Kumar Upadhyay & Anr

Mukesh Kumar Jain ....Appellant Vs. Navin Kumar Upadhyay & Anr. ...Respondents For Appellant: Mr. Saurabh Kalia, Mr. Vikas Tomar, Mr. Madhav Goel, Advocates for Applicant For Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Mr. Gautam Singhal, Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Advocates for RP. RP in person.

ORDER

10.08.2023: I.A. No. 3580, 3581 of 2023:- This is an Application filed

by the Respondent No.1 praying for following reliefs:-

"A. Allow the present Application and modify the order dated 24.07.2023 and directly or indirectly allow Mr. Abhishek Saxena Chief Operating Officer and/or Mr. Jitendra Rawat, Vice President, Marketing, and/or Mr. OP Gupta, Chief Human Resource Officer, or in the alternative, allow the Applicant to manage the day-to-day affairs of the Corporate Debtor and make necessary payments for the day-to-day working and functioning of the Corporate Debtor;

B. Direct Central Bank of India to allow the Corporate Debtor or Mr. Abhishek Saxena, Chief Operating Officer and/or Mr. Jitendra Rawat, Vice President, 2

Marketing, and/or Mr. OP Gupta, Chief Human Resource Officer, or in the alternative, allow the Applicant to operate the bank account of the Corporate Debtor and permit bank operations of the Corporate Debtor;

Or in the alternative

Direct the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor to sign all necessary bank cheques and make necessary payments, including payments to the vendors and employees of the Corporate Debtor, in order to keep the Corporate Debtor running as a going concern;

C. Pass any other interim reliefs as this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience."

2. By our detailed order dated 24.07.2023, we have noticed the interim

order and other proceedings. We have already noticed the order of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court staying the CIRP of the Respondent No.2 in paragraph 3 of the

order.

3. By this Application, Respondent No.1 who claimed to be Executive

Director prays for reliefs as noticed above. In essence, the Applicant prays that

officers of the Corporate Debtor be permitted to function and operate the bank

account. Counsel for the Applicant also relied on the judgment of this Tribunal

in "Ashok Kumar Tyagi vs. UCO Bank & Anr.-IA Nos.4291, 4221, 4340

in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1323 of 2022". In the said judgment, we I.A. No. 3580, 3581 of 2023 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 930 & 931 of 2023 3

have already taken the view that even if the CIRP is stayed, the Corporate

Debtor could not be put back in function. In the facts of the said case, we had

issued certain interim directions for running of the managing of the Corporate

Debtor for carrying day to day function.

4. In the present case, by virtue of the interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, the CIRP process has been stayed, meaning thereby the Resolution

Professional shall not take any further steps in the CIRP process. However, we

are of the view that for day to day function Resolution Professional can carry

its duty and ensure that the Corporate Debtor runs as a going concern for

which he may take steps expeditiously.

5. We dispose of this Application accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn

I.A. No. 3580, 3581 of 2023 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 930 & 931 of 2023