Rajan Shivnath Puri vs Crimplon Yarms Pvt. Ltd & Ors
- CitationComp. App. (AT) No. 104 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The reasoning in this order is brief and fact-bound, but it does rest on identifiable grounds: Where an appellant has himself invited the appointment of an administrator, the costs of the administrator's fee and expenses, including the appellant's own preliminary and final report stages, are properly borne by the appellant, who is directed to clear them, and an impugned order that so directs is not to be interfered with. A grievance that a party was denied proper hearing is not sustained where the impugned order itself disposed of other applications in the same proceedings against which counsel raised no concern, showing that the hearing was given.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Rajan Shivnath Puri ....Appellant
Vs.
Crimplon Yarns Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Reshant Shah, Advocate For Respondents:
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
23.04.2024: This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated
19.10.2023 whereby an application CA No. 382/2023 of the Appellant to seek
modification of the order dated 11.01.2023 was dismissed. Along with CA No.
382/2023 the Appellant also moved Company Application No. 268/2023
seeking modification of order dated 11.01.2023 and praying the Bench to
discharge Respondent No. 5 viz the Ld. Administrator and instead to order and
direct the Central Government to conduct an investigation into the affairs of
Respondent No. 1 Company by appointing one or more inspectors or SFIO
(Serious Fraud Investigation Office) or competent investigation agency with
further directions to the applicant to deposit an amount exceeding of Rs.
25,000/-. The application no. 382/2023 was dismissed vide the impugned
order as the administrator had continued with his investigation and had rather
furnished a preliminary report dated 05.08.2023 by then. -2-
2. Admittedly partial record was received by the Ld. Administrator by the
end of July, 2023 and the investigation was to take 2-3 months, hence the Ld.
Administrator sought time till 30.11.2023 for filing of final report. However,
direction was given to the Ld. Administrator to place the final report before the
next date of hearing. Admittedly, such final report has now been placed on
record by the Ld. Administrator, hence the issue qua the reduction of the fee to
the Ld. Administrator does not survive.
3. We have also perused the impugned order. It notes the applicant was to
pay the fees as also his other expenses, including travel and stay.
4. We are also of the view it was the appellant who had invited the
appointment of Ld. Administrator and preliminary report as also the final
report stood filed, thus the appellant need to clear fee etc. within a month.
5. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the reasoning given in the
impugned order. The argument that no proper hearing was given to the Ld.
Counsel for the Appellant is also belied by the fact that vide the impugned
order two other applications viz nos. 226/2023 and 268/2023 were disposed of
and against which the Ld. Counsel for the appellant had raised no concern.
Comp. App. (AT) No. 104 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2145, 2428 of 2024 -3-
6. The appeal, thus, has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending
applications, if any also are disposed of.
[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)
[Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)
sr/md Comp. App. (AT) No. 104 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2145, 2428 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