Naresh Kumar vs Durgesh Kumar Sharma & Ors
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 901 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal will not entertain an application for initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code against a party for alleged perjury where the appeal in which the allegedly false material was filed has already been dismissed as time-barred and the underlying CIRP order has been affirmed, since no purpose would be served by such proceedings in that posture. Where the corporate insolvency resolution process has been closed following settlement between the parties, a pending application seeking perjury proceedings arising from that process is not to be entertained, the settlement and closure being a further ground for rejecting the application.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
In the matter of: Naresh Kumar Through POA Holder Sukhbhir Singh ....Appellant Vs. Durgesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. ...Respondents For Applicant Ms. Mannat Singh, Mr. Sanjeet Thakur, Mr. Saurabh Soni, Advocate For Respondents
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
08.07.2024: I.A. No. 4583 of 2024 :- This is an application filed by the
Applicant who was Respondent No.3 in the appeal. Applicant has filed this
application under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for
initiating proceeding against the Director of the Corporate Debtor. Company
Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 901 of 2024 was filed by one Shri Sukhbir Singh
claiming to be Power of Attorney Holder. Appeal was dismissed by this
Tribunal by its order dated 14.05.2024 on the ground of delay. Appeal have
been filed beyond 888 days.
2. Applicant in the application makes plea that Appellant has committed
perjury against the Respondent, hence, the proceeding under Section 340 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure has been initiated. 2
3. In the facts of the present case when this Tribunal dismissed the appeal
as barred by time and affirmed the CIRP order, we see no reason to entertain
this application.
4. Counsel for the Applicant further submits that in the CIRP, parties have
settled the matter and CIRP has been closed. This is another reason for not
entertaining the present application. IA is rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn
I.A. No. 4583 of 2024 IN Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 901 of 2024
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