Rahuul Shah & Anr vs Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd.& ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2141 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order of the Adjudicating Authority permitting substitution of an assignee as applicant, while expressly reserving all questions on the merits of the petition for hearing at the time of final arguments, does not itself determine those merits; a party aggrieved by such an interlocutory substitution order is adequately protected by the liberty so reserved, and an appeal against the order is not to be entertained where that liberty remains available to the appellant, who claims to be an intervener and shareholder of the corporate debtor.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Rahuul Shah & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Raghenth Basant, Mr. Akhil Abraham Roy, Mr. Adithya Korhy Roy, Ms. Hima Bhardwaj, Advocates. For Respondents :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
10.12.2024: Heard counsel for the appellant.
This appeal has filed against the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by
NCLT, Mumbai Bench in IA No. 4075 of 2023. The application was filed by
Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. seeking substitution on basis of
Assignment Agreement dated 30.06.2023 which was in respect to Radius
Speed Project Private Limited as borrower. The application for substitution has
been allowed and disposed of.
2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that
appellant has filed intervention application he being 50% share-holder of the
corporate debtor. Application was nor served on the appellant and it was not
heard, whereas in the order it is submitted that respondent have contested the
prayer.
3. We have considered the submission of the counsel for the appellant and
perused the records. While allowing the application Adjudicating Authority has
made following observations:-
"Accordingly, the IA is allowed and disposed of. All other rights of the Respondent with respect to the merits of the petitions will be dealt with at the time of arguments of main CP."
4. The order in substance is only permitting substitution leaving all
questions in respect of merits of the petition to be dealt at the time of an
argument. The liberty given by Adjudicating Authority can also well be availed
by the appellant who claim to be intervener and share-holder. We thus are of
the view that the order amply protect the rights of all concerned on the merits
of the Assignment. In view of the aforesaid, we see no reason to entertain the
appeal with the observations as made above, appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) harleen/NN
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2141 of 2024 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