Pammi Singh & Anr vs Shouryashubham Infrastructures Pvt. ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)No. 380 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal's order rests on the following reasoning. The impugned order is an adjournment that merely gives effect to a Supreme Court status quo direction; the Tribunal does not decide the merits of the appellant's claim to be a financial creditor. Where the Adjudicating Authority has not been asked to consider a particular ground and has not dealt with it in its order, an appellate forum will not adjudicate that ground for the first time in appeal; the proper course is to leave the party free to raise it by a specific application before the Adjudicating Authority, which must then decide it on its merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)No. 380 of 2020 IN THE MATTER OF: Pammi Singh & Anr. .....Appellants Vs. Shouryashubham Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. ......Respondent Present : For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Appellant in person
O R D E R
04.03.2020 - The Appellant party in person states that the Appellant is
aggrieved by the Impugned Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority ('National
Company Law Tribunal') New Delhi, Court VI, dated 30.01.2020 passed in IB-
2918/ND/2019 which reads as under:-
"ORDER
Vide order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 26/2020 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the order-
"Status quo as of today, with respect to the pending applications,
shall be maintained in the meanwhile."
Let the case be placed after disposal of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 26/2020.
Matter is adjourned to 05.03.2020."
....contd.
2. The Appellant states that the Adjudicating Authority has wrongly relied on
the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in maintaining the status quo with regard
to Section 7 application which he has filed. He states that the allotment in his
case was cancelled in 2013 and thus it is not his case to take benefit as an
allottee but he claims to be a 'Financial Creditor' without relying on the provision
regarding allottee 'Financial Creditors' u/s 5(8)(f) Explanation, of IBC. He states
there is distinction.
3. The Impugned order, however, does not show that any such case was made
before Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority has not dealt with
any such issue.
4. Looking at the application filed u/s 7 of the 'I&B' Code and the Impugned
order, we leave it to the Appellant to file a specific application for the purpose
before Adjudicating Authority which can consider the same on its merits. He
seeks liberty to move Adjudicating Authority and make out a case as above.
5. The present appeal is disposed of with liberty to the Appellant to move
application before the Adjudicating Authority raising issue as above for its
decision.
[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)
[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)
[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical) ss/m Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)No. 380 of 2020
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