Partha Sarathy Sarkar vs Union Of India Through Secretary ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.576 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority is not required to examine the merits of an application that the applicant has withdrawn or the successor Resolution Professional has declined to prosecute, and where it disposes of such an application as infructuous on the basis of the successor's statement, it need not look into the facts of the application. A decision taken by a successor Resolution Professional in the conduct of the corporate insolvency resolution process, including a decision not to pursue a pending application, cannot be challenged by the erstwhile Resolution Professional who has been replaced, and an appeal by the erstwhile Resolution Professional against an order disposing of such an application as infructuous does not warrant interference.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Partha Sarathy Sarkar ...Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Partha Sarkar, Appellant in person. For Respondent: Mr. D. Verma, Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocates for R- 1&2.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
06.05.2024: Heard Shri Partha Sarathy Sarkar, Appellant appearing in
person. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 15.01.2024 passed
by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No.463/JPR/2023.
2. The application I.A. No.436/JPR/2023 was filed by the Appellant who
was Erstwhile Resolution Professional against the officials of the UTI to
summon the attendance of R-3 and production of documents. The Appellant
was replaced by another Resolution Professional and the New Resolution
Professional submitted before the Adjudicating Authority that he does not
want to further prosecute the application, I.A. No.463/JPR/2023 and the
Adjudicating Authority disposed of the application as infructuous.
3. The Appellant who is Erstwhile Resolution Professional is now
challenging the order submitting that the application which was filed by the
Cont'd.../ -2-
Erstwhile Resolution Professional was required to be heard on merits and
decision taken.
4. When the Appellant- the Erstwhile Resolution Professional was
replaced with New Resolution Professional, who is now proceeding with the
CIRP, the decision taken by him cannot be objected by the Erstwhile
Resolution Professional, who is Appellant herein. We are of the view that at
the instance of the Appellant no interference can be made with the impugned
order by which application has been disposed of as infructuous.
5. Appellant further contended that the Adjudicating Authority ought to
have looked into the facts of the application. We are of the view that when
the Adjudicating Authority after noticing the statement of the New Resolution
Professional has disposed of the application, it was not necessary to look into
facts of the application. The submission made by the Appellant are without
any substance.
6. Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.576 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