Nagarjuna Travels & Hotels Ltd vs Kotak Mahindra Bank & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 301 of 2017
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal against an order that merely adjourned a matter, holding the appeal frivolous because the case was listed for the next date. It further imposed costs of Rupees One Lakh, payable to the respondent bank by the director who filed the appeal on behalf of the corporate debtor without authority.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 301 of 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
Nagarjuna Travels & Hotels Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Kotak Mahindra Bank & Ors. ...Respondents
Present:
For Appellant : Shri Saurabh Kalia and Shri Nishant Piyush, Advocate
ORDER
05.12.2017 The appellant has challenged the order dated 16th November,
2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal),
Hyderabad Bench, which reads as follows:
"Heard Shri S. Chidambaram, Learned PCS for the Petitioner, Shri T. Nagender, (For Canara Bank), Shri P. Srihasha Reddy, (KMB) Learned Counsels for Respondents and Shri K.K. Rao, Learned RP. Shri T. Nagender, Learned Counsel for Canara Bank requested time. Post the case on 07.12.2017."
The only plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there
was an urgency in the matter as the appellant sought for injunction and the case
has been adjourned.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the
present appeal is frivolous and the case is likely to be listed on 7th December,
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 301 of 2017 1 2017. For the said reason, we dismiss the appeal with cost of Rupees One Lakh
be paid in favour of Kotak Mahindra Bank by Shri E. Venkatram Reddy, Director
who filed the appeal on behalf of the Corporate Debtor without any authority.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Member(Judicial)
/ns/uk
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 301 of 2017 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