Navneet Butan vs Ge-Max Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1259 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority's refusal to implead intervening homebuyers as parties to an application for exclusion of assets from the CIRP was correct, since a person in the position of the intervenor cannot be made a party to that application; however, a right to make oral submissions at the hearing is not, by itself, a sufficient opportunity to be heard where the intervenor's interest is affected, and an intervenor who has a case to put should be afforded the opportunity to file at least an affidavit in support of it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Navneet Butan ...Appellant Versus GE-Max Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav Tyagi, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Aditya Madaan and Mr. Aishwarya Adlakha, Advocates for CD.
Mr. Rajeev K. Virmani and Mr. Anuj Malhotra, Advocates for R-2.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
08.07.2024 Heard Counsel for the Appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 07.05.2024 in
Intervention Petition No. 10 of 2024. The Appellant filed Intervention Petition
which has been disposed of by the impugned order. Adjudicating Authority
did not accept the submission of the Applicant to implead in the array of the
parties. However, Applicant were permitted to put forth their oral submissions
during the course of hearing of I.A. 5570/2020.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellants are
homebuyers who are to oppose the I.A. 5570/2020 filed by the Respondent
claiming to be the landowners of the assets who have sought relief for
exclusion of assets from the CIRP.
5. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed
that Applicant cannot be impleaded as party to the application. However, the liberty to make oral submission was not sufficient. Applicant ought to have
been provided opportunity to file at least an Affidavit in support of their case.
6. We have been informed that now the matter has been adjourned to
13.08.2024. In view of the aforesaid, we permit the Appellant two weeks time
to file an Affidavit in support of their case. The Appellants may request the RP
to give a copy of the I.A. 5570/2020, which may be provided within two weeks
to the Appellant.
7. We have also heard Counsel for the Respondent.
With these observations we dispose of the appeal. We make it clear that
we are not expressing any opinion on merits of the contention of the parties.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1259 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