Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan vs Saravana Distributers
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1071 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal may expunge adverse observations made against a party in an impugned order, without hearing the other side, where those observations are inconsistent with other findings in the same order that appreciate that party's work, and where the Tribunal expressly declines to examine the merits of the impugned decision.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan ...Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Saravana Distributers ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: - Mr. K.V Balakrishnan, Advocate.
For Respondent: - None.
O R D E R
17.10.2019─ The Appellant- Mr. Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan
('Resolution Professional') has challenged the order of approving the
'Resolution Plan' dated 16th September, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating
Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Bengaluru Bench.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant referred to paragraph 13 of the
impugned order wherein certain observations have been made against
the Appellant- 'Resolution Professional' which are contrary to the
observations as made by the Adjudicating Authority at paragraph 7
wherein his work has been appreciated.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to
hear the other party for the present, we expunge the adverse observations
as made against the Appellant- Mr. Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan
Contd/-...........
-2-
('Resolution Professional') at paragraph 13 of the impugned order dated
16th September, 2019.
However, we make it clear that we have not gone into the merit of
the decision dated 16th September, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating
Authority.
The appeal stands disposed of. No costs.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Justice A.I.S. Cheema) Member(Judicial)
(Kanthi Narahari) Member(Technical) Ar/g
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1071 of 2019
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