One City Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs Rajesh Ramnani
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 707 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an Adjudicating Authority, while disposing of an application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, grants only liberty to the Resolution Professional to approach a third-party statutory authority with a fresh application, without itself issuing any direction on the reliefs prayed for, the order is not a substantive determination of those reliefs, and the appellate tribunal will not enter into the contested issues raised by the parties but will leave them open for the authority to decide on the fresh application. Where a fresh application is filed before such a statutory authority, the authority is to be left to take its own decision on it, and the Appellate Tribunal may direct that it endeavour to dispose of the application within a stated time, while affected parties are given the opportunity to make their objections or representations before that authority.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Ghaziabad Development Authority ...Appellant Versus Rajesh Ramnani, RP of Ansal Urban Condominiums Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Parish Mishra and Mr. Adarsh Srivastava, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anuja Pethia, Mr. Rishabh Nigam, Mr. Rishabh Govila, Mr. Rajshree Chaudhary and Mr. Diksha Dadu, Advocates for Intervenor. Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Sujoy Datta, Ms. Nishtha Khurana, Ms. Mahima Sekhawat, Ms. Lavanya Pathak & Mr. Ishan Choudhary, Advocates for R- 2. Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate for Homebuyer. Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Mr. Shivanshu Kumar, and Mr. Kartikey, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Rajesh Ramnani, Advocate for RP.
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 766 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2742 of 2024
IN THE MATTER OF: One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Rajesh Ramnani, RP of Ansal Urban Condominiums Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anuja Pethia, Mr. Rishabh Nigam, Mr. Rishabh Govila, Mr. Rajshree Chaudhary and Mr. Diksha Dadu, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Parish Mishra and Mr. Adarsh Srivastava, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Sujoy Datta, Ms. Nishtha Khurana, Ms. Mahima Sekhawat, Ms. Lavanya Pathak & Mr. Ishan Roy Choudhary, Advocates for R-3. Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate for Homebuyer. Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Mr. Shivanshu Kumar, and Mr. Kartikey, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Rajesh Ramnani, Advocate for RP.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
22.04.2024 : These two Appeals have been filed against the same order
dated 05.03.2024 passed in I.A. - 6237/2022 in Company Petition No. (IB)-
113(ND)/2021. The application was filed by the Resolution Professional (RP)
before the Adjudicating Authority praying for following reliefs:
"• Direct Respondent No. 1 to independently recognize the Corporate Debtor and the Applicant (as Authorized Representative of the Corporate Debtor) in its records for the purposes of approval, revision, compounding, completion etc. of the Building Plans and all the future permissions/licenses, etc. qua the Group Housing project of the Corporate Debtor at Sushant Aquapolis, Dhoondera, Ghaziabad without insisting on the presence of and any of the obligations to be completed by Respondent No. 2 as a preconditions for the said purposes.
• Direct Respondent No. 1 to transfer all approvals, licenses, etc. of the Building Plans, etc. in the name of the Corporate Debtor which was earlier granted by Respondent No. 1 in the name of Respondent No. 2 for the Group Housing Project at Sushant Aquopolis, Dhoondera, Ghaziabad."
2. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the Applicant and other
Respondents has passed the following Order:
"6. It is an admitted position that in order to proceed with the Group Housing Project the Applicant has to obtain necessary approvals or remission license etc. from the Respondent No. 1 Authority as required under the law without which it will not be possible for the Applicant to proceed with the CIRP Process and completion of the project in question. We, therefore, Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 707 & 766 of 2024 2 of 4 grant liberty to the Applicant/Resolution Professional to approach the Respondent No. 1 Authority with appropriate application and in which case, we expect the Respondent No. 1 to extend full co-operation to the Applicant/RP and provide all necessary documents etc. as prayed for by the Applicant in this application.
7. The present application is therefore, disposed of with the above directions."
3. Learned Counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority submits
that Ghaziabad Development Authority was not heard at the time when order
was passed since proceedings were already Ex-Parte against the Ghaziabad
Development Authority. It is submitted that in paragraph 5, Order recorded
that both the parties were heard cannot mean that Ghaziabad Development
Authority was also heard.
4. The Appeal has been filed by Ghaziabad Development Authority
challenging the Order and the other Appeal has been filed by the Applicant
who claims to be Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) who has submitted
the Resolution Plan in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of
the Corporate Debtor - Ansal Urban Condominiums Private Limited (AUCPL).
5. When we look into paragraph 6 of the Order, directions issued by the
Adjudicating Authority is only liberty to the RP to approach the Ghaziabad
Development Authority with appropriate application and the Court has only
observed that Court expect that Ghaziabad Development Authority shall
extend cooperation to the Applicant and provide all the necessary documents
etc.
6. The Adjudicating Authority has not issued any directions as prayed for
in the application by the RP and it was left to the Ghaziabad Development
Authority to take appropriate decision.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 707 & 766 of 2024 3 of 4
7. We, at this stage are not inclined to enter into various issues raised by
Counsel for both the parties, since the Adjudicating Authority itself has given
liberty to the RP to approach the Ghaziabad Development Authority with a
fresh application. We only observe that in event the appropriate application is
filed before the GDA within one week from today, the Ghaziabad Development
Authority shall endeavour to dispose of the application as early as possible
preferably within the period of four weeks.
8. It shall be opened for the Respondent No. 2-Ansal Properties and
Infrastructure Limited (APIL) and Appellant-One City Infrastructure Private
Limited to submit their objections/representations before the Ghaziabad
Development Authority bringing their point of view before the Ghaziabad
Development Authority for consideration.
9. Learned Counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority submitted
that relevant clauses of Resolution Plan should be provided to Ghaziabad
Development Authority. It is open for Ghaziabad Development Authority to
make an application to the RP for providing the relevant clauses of the
Resolution Plan affecting the Ghaziabad Development Authority. If any such
application is made, it is for the RP to take call and take appropriate steps.
All contentions of parties are left open.
With these observations, we dispose of both the Appeals.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 707 & 766 of 2024 4 of 4
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