Roma Enterprises vs Martin S.K. Golla (Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 232 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A Resolution Professional or the Adjudicating Authority cannot determine a disputed question of fact as to whether assets, such as hypothecated cranes, belong to the Corporate Debtor; such a claim is not to be decided at the insolvency resolution stage and may be pursued by the claimant at an appropriate stage after the moratorium ends.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Mr. Martin S.K. Golla, R.P. ...Respondent
Present:
For Appellant : None
For Respondent : Mr. Davesh Bhatia, Advocate
ORDER
22.02.2019 The appellant, who claims to be 'Operational Creditor', has
challenged the order dated 2nd April, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority
(National Company law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Mumbai whereby and
whereunder the application filed by the appellant against the decision of the
'Resolution Professional' rejecting the claim of appellant with the observation to
place the matter before the 'Committee of Creditors' in the interest of justice, has
not been entertained.
2. There being a disputed claim of the 'Operational Creditors'; on 22nd May,
2018 the appellant was directed to file additional affidavit and to state whether
claims were shown in the records of the 'Corporate Debtor' and the assets and
liabilities of the 'Corporate Debtor'. Pursuant to the same, an affidavit has been
filed by the appellant but according to the respondent the records of the
'Corporate Debtor' do not reflects the claim, nor the liability and assets of the 2
'Corporate Debtor' prepared by the 'Interim Resolution Professional' reflect any
such case.
3. Earlier, this Appellate Tribunal considered the question as to whether
'Resolution Professional' or the 'Adjudicating Authority' can decide whether
goods hypothecated, such as four cranes, belongs to the 'Corporate Debtor' or
not. It was held that no such claim can be decided by the 'Resolution
Professional'.
4. Today, the case was placed for hearing. Nobody appeared on behalf of the
appellant in spite of repeated calls. From the record we find that there is a
disputed question of fact which cannot be decided by the 'Resolution
Professional' or the 'Adjudicating Authority'. The appellant can raise such issue
and claim at an appropriate stage, i.e. after moratorium is over.
In the aforesaid background, we are not inclined to decide such claim.
Appeal is dismissed. No cost.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
/ns/uk/
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 232 of 2018
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