Rajesh Yadav vs Revital Reality Private Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 449 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a Section 7 application has been filed by allottees and is pending before the Adjudicating Authority, another set of allottees has no basis to seek its dismissal by way of an application to the Adjudicating Authority, and the Adjudicating Authority does not err in rejecting such an application. The Adjudicating Authority may call for any material from the Corporate Debtor or any other entity in considering a Section 7 application, and an order rejecting an application for dismissal of that Section 7 application, made without any error in its reasoning, is not liable to be interfered with on appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 449 of 2023 IN THE MATTER OF: Rajesh Yadav & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Manish Aneja & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellants: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Mohak Sharma, Mr. Sajal Jain, Mr. Supriyo Banerjee, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Ishan Dewan, Mr. Lokesh Malik, Advocates for R-2.
ORDER
13.04.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as
Mr. Abhijeet Sinha appearing for the Corporate Debtor. This appeal has been
filed against the order dated 27.03.2023 by which I.A. No. 55 of 2023 filed by
the appellant praying for dismissal of CP (IB)/657/ND/2021 has been rejected.
The Section 7 application was filed by 147 unit holders which application is
proceeding. The Appellants are another set of home buyers, 66+23 in number,
have prayed for dismissal of the Section 7 application which has been rejected.
2. Ld. Adjudicating Authority has observed that keeping the majority
interest in the view there is no ground to allow the application. Mr. Abhishek
Anand Counsel for the appellant submits that it is a real estate project, hence,
initiation of CIRP will not be in the interest of the home buyers. Learned
Counsel for the Corporate Debtor has also supported the appellant.
Cont'd.../ -2-
3. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the
records.
4. When the application was filed by 147 home buyers in their own right
which has not yet been admitted, we see no reason to entertain any application
by another set of home buyers for rejection of the application.
5. The application filed by the appellant has rightly been rejected. The
application under Section 7 which was required to be considered by the
Adjudicating Authority. It is always open for the Adjudicating Authority to ask
for any material from the Corporate Debtor or any other entity, however, we do
not find any error in the order impugned, Appeal dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
sa/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 449 of 2023
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