Ramnath Lifestyle Pvt Ltd vs Shri. Ganga Ram Agarwal And Anr
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 987 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not to be exercised to interfere with an order of the Adjudicating Authority approving the issuance of a fresh Form-G where the Committee of Creditors has taken that decision, absent any ground shown at the instance of the promoter to warrant such interference. Pending applications before the Adjudicating Authority, such as those raised by the promoter, do not render an appeal against a distinct impugned order maintainable on the strength of those applications; the appellant remains free to press them before the Adjudicating Authority when they are heard. A request for fixing a time limit for completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process is to be made by application to the Adjudicating Authority, which is to consider it and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, rather than being determined in appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 987 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Ramnath Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants (Promotors of Ramnath Developers Pvt. Ltd.) Versus Ganga Ram Agarwal, Resolution Professional of ...Respondents Ramnath Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Yash Tondon, Advocate. For Respondents : None.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
29.05.2024: This appeal is filed by promoter challenging the order dated
21.03.2024 by which Adjudicating Authority has allowed the application filed
by the RP for issuance of fresh Form-G. The decision to issue fresh Form-G was
approved by the Committee of Creditors consequent to which the impugned
order was passed.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that there
are applications filed by the promoters being IA No. 127 and 334 which are still
pending and not yet have been decided. It is further submitted that the issue
regarding the constitution of committee of creditors is also pending before the
Adjudicating Authority.
3. The order which is impugned in the present appeal is with regard to
issuance of Form-G when the CoC has taken decision to issue Form-G we see
no reason at the instance of the promoter to interfere with the said order in
exercise the appellate jurisdiction. In so far as the application filed and pending
before the Adjudicating Authority it is always open for the appellant to press the said application when it comes for hearing before the Adjudicating
Authority.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no time limit has been
fixed by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order to complete the
CIRP. It is always open for the appellant to make an application before the
Adjudicating Authority for fixing a time limit for CIRP which application be
considered and appropriate order be passed by Adjudicating Authority in
accordance with law.
With these observations, Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)
harleen/NN
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 987 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