Rohit J Vora vs Religare Finvest Limited (India ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.235 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal's disposal rests on the following reasoning: where the Adjudicating Authority has directed liquidation of a corporate debtor on the basis that the corporate insolvency resolution process has made no progress beyond the statutory timeline and the financial creditor does not object to liquidation, an appeal challenging only observations in that order that are adverse to the resolution professional, while the order itself is otherwise correct, is without merit and does not warrant interference.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Rohit J. Vora ...Appellant
Versus
Religare Finvest Ltd. (India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd.) & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Mr. Soayib Qureshi, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Kaushik Mishra, Advocate.
ORDER
23.03.2023: This Appeal has been filed by the Erstwhile Resolution
Professional challenging the order dated 16.11.2022 by which order the
Adjudicating Authority has allowed the application filed by the Resolution
Professional for Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating
Authority in the impugned order has noticed that CIRP was commenced on
25.04.2019 and even after more than two years no progress has been made in
the CIRP. The Erstwhile Resolution Professional has now come up in appeal
challenging the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that although the application
was filed by the Resolution Professional for Liquidation, which has been
allowed, some observation has been made by the Adjudicating Authority which
may be adverse to the Resolution Professional, due to this reason he has filed
Cont'd.../ -2-
this Appeal. Learned counsel for the Appellant referred to observations made
in Paras 2 and 3 of the order.
3. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the Appellant
and perused the record.
4. The observations which have been made in the impugned order were
with regard to the facts which took place in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.
Events and facts were noticed which are basis for passing the order. The main
reason which is noticeable from the order is that even after lapse of 330 days,
the CIRP has not progressed any further. Before the Adjudicating Authority,
the Financial Creditor also stated that they have no objection in allowing the
application for liquidation. We, thus, do not find any error in the order of the
Adjudicating Authority directing for liquidation. There is no merit in the
Appeal. Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 235 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