Ritu Rastogi (Resolution Professional ... vs Dr. Naveen Chaudhri & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2089 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal will not treat observations in an adjudicating authority's order as attributing a position to a party where the material on record shows that the position was taken by another party, a member of the Committee of Creditors, and not by the party to whom the observations were attached. Where an order imputes to a resolution professional a prayer that was in fact made by a creditor, the resolution professional is entitled to have the imputed observations deleted, and the adjudicating authority's refusal to do so, on an application confined to that correction, is set aside.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Ritu Rastogi (RP Noida Medicare Centre Ltd.) ...Appellant
Versus
Dr. Naveen Chaudhari & Ors. (Member of Suspended Board of Director) ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Ms. Eshna Kumar, Advocate with Ms. Ritu Rastogi, RP. For Respondents : Mr. Vardaan Bhatia, Advocates for R2 & R2A. Mr. Chintranshul A. Sinha, Mr. Sagar Bansal, Ms. Pallavi, Mr. Shivam Shorewala, Ms. Aakansha, Ms. Rakshita Bhargava, Advocates for R-3. Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Ms. Vatsala Kak, Mr. Raghav Dembla, Advocates for SRA.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
11.02.2025: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned
counsel for the Respondent and SRA. This appeal filed by the Resolution
Professional is confined to limited prayer with regard to certain observations
made against the Resolution Professional in the order dated 30.04.2024,
which were sought to be deleted in IA No.2379/ND/2024 filed by the
Resolution Professional, which IA has been rejected by the Adjudicating
Authority by order dated 14.05.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that in observations made
in the order dated 30.04.2024 in Para 2(n), Para 6 in last sentence and Para
7 use of expression 'Applicant' for Resolution Professional was not correct
Cont'd.../ 2
since the statement which was made was by the Suraksha ARC, a member of
the CoC. Although the Resolution Professional has brought correct facts
before the Adjudicating Authority regarding Fire NOC having expired,
however, the Applicant has never prayed that the Resolution Plan be rejected
and liquidation proceeding initiated. Learned counsel for the Appellant has
referred to the Written Submission which was filed by Suraksha ARC at page
53. Para 4 of the Written Submission where following was pleaded by
Suraksha ARC:
"4. Further, during the CIRP the Corporate Debtor ceased to be a going concern, and the fire NoC has expired and consequently all hospital licenses have also lapsed. Same cannot not be renewed unless the hospital went through substantial structural changes. Therefore, the Resolution Plan stands frustrated and the same cannot be effectively implemented now."
3. When we look into the observations made by the Adjudicating
Authority, the said observations as contained in Para 4 of the Written
Submission has been imputed to the Resolution Professional. We, thus, are
of the view that the application which was filed by the Resolution Professional
deserved to be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the SRA submits that the Resolution Professional
has also agreed before the Adjudicating Authority that in view of there being
no fire NOC plan is not implementable.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2089 of 2024 3
5. Be that as it may. Applicant was only aggrieved with observation in so
far as the Adjudicating Authority has observed that it was Resolution
Professional who prayed for rejection of the Resolution Plan. Hence, the
Application filed by the Resolution Professional deserve to be allowed. Order
dated 14.05.2024 is set aside. IA No.2379/2024 is allowed to the above
extend. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2089 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