Prashant Jain vs Respondent
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 140 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Adjudicating Authority has already granted an extension of the liquidation period on the basis of a particular non-cooperation by the suspended directors, a liquidator cannot seek a further exclusion of time for the same conduct by way of a separate application; relief for the same action of the respondents is not to be granted multiple times. An applicant's stated purpose for seeking exclusion of time, namely that it is sought only for calculating the liquidator's fees, is not by itself a ground on which the exclusion of time may be allowed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Prashant Jain, Liquidator of Goodday Ventures India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus --- ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Ms. Mily Ghoshal and Ms. Vidya Kata, Advocate.
For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
20.02.2025 : Heard Counsel for the Appellant.
2. This Appeal has been filed against an Order of Adjudicating Authority
dated 28.10.2024 by rejecting I.A. No. 5107/2024.
3. The Order passed by Adjudicating Authority on I.A. No. 5107/2024 is
as follows:
"2. IA-5107/2024: This is an Application filed by the Liquidator seeking exclusion of 560 days on the ground of non-cooperation from the side of the Respondent/suspended board of directors in vacating the premises for conducting the auction.
3. On the same grounds the Liquidator has already sought relief for extension of liquidation period, which has been granted by this bench. Hence, Liquidator cannot seek multiple reliefs for the same action of the respondents. Therefore, IA is dismissed."
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there was row of houses
which could not be vacated and non-corporation was there from the
suspended Board of Directors and the Appellant is seeking exclusion only for
purposes of calculating his fees.
5. Adjudicating Authority has noticed the content of the Application and
noticed the ground that ground was only of non-corporation from the side of
Respondents/Suspended Directors in vacating the premises for conducting
the Auction. The Adjudicating Authority has also noticed that extension of
Liquidation period has already been granted by the Adjudicating Authority.
The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in refusing to grant
exclusion of 560 days as prayed by the Appellant.
6. The submission of the Appellant that exclusion is sought only for
purposes of calculation of fees cannot be any ground to allow the exclusion
as prayed by the Appellant.
7. We thus do not find any error in the Order of the Adjudicating Authority
rejecting the I.A.
Appeal dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 140 of 2025 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