Rajan Garg Resolution Professional Of ... vs Shree Ahuja Properties & Realtors ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1297 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an application seeking exclusion of time from the CIRP period under Section 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 pleads specific facts and details of pending litigation, the Adjudicating Authority must advert to those pleaded details; a conclusion that a dispute between the Committee of Creditors is not a justifiable ground for exclusion, without considering the pleaded litigation and the pendency of the applications, is an order that cannot stand and must be set aside, with the application revived for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Rajan Garg, RP of Shree Ahuja Properties & Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Shree Ahuja Properties & Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Devul Dighe, Advocate. For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
16.07.2024: This Appeal has been filed by the Resolution Professional
challenging order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in
IA No.1855(MB)2024. The application was filed by the Appellant praying for
following reliefs:
"5. Relief(s) Sought:
In view of the facts mentioned above, the Applicant prays for the following relief(s):
(a) Consider and allow the present application for exclusion of a period of 157 days from the CIRP process period for a period from 18th June 2023 to 21 November 2023 under Rule 11 of the NCLT, Rules, 2016 read with to Section 12 the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Regulation 40 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Insolvency Resolution) Regulations, 2016
Cont'd.../ 2
thereby extending CIRP process period up to 18th July 2024;
(b) The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an order condoning the delay of 130 days in the filing of the present application for exclusion of the CIRP process period on accounts facts and circumstances mentioned in the present application.
(c) Issue such necessary orders for extension of moratorium period as may be deem fit; and
(d) Issue such other orders as may be necessary in the matter."
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that in the application detail
facts were pleaded including the fact that there being inter se dispute between
the CoC regarding the replacement of Resolution Professional due to which
proceeding cannot proceed and the matter could be come to rest on
16.10.2023, hence, application was filed for exclusion of 157 days.
3. We have perused the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The
observation made by the Adjudicating Authority that inter se dispute could
not be a justifiable or proper ground for exclusion of 157 days whereas in the
application details of litigation was given and pendency of the applications
has been detailed by the Appellant which has not been adverted to. It may be
true that mere dispute between the CoC may not be relevant fact but when
applications were filed and litigation was made, the Adjudicating Authority
ought to have adverted to the details.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1297 of 2024 3
4. In view of the above, we are of the view that ends of justice be served in
setting aside the order dated 24.04.2024 and reviving application IA
No.1855(MB)2024 for fresh consideration. Appeal is allowed. Let IA No.
1855(MB)2024 be revived before the Adjudicating Authority to be heard and
decided in accordance with law afresh. Appeal is disposed of.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1297 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