Roshan Colonizers Private Limited ... vs Mr. Lalluram And Others
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 426 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal against the impleadment order is dismissed as infructuous. Where subsequent orders in the same proceeding have finally decided the underlying application and rejected the resolution plan, nothing survives for decision in an appeal directed against an interlocutory order, and the appeal is disposed of on that footing without any expression of opinion on the merits of the rival plans.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Roshan Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant(s) Representing CoC of Grateful Buildinfra Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
Lalluram & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Vijay Mishra, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Bhuvan Arora, Advocate for new RP. Mr. Anupam K. Sinha, Mr. Apoorv Jha, Mr. Pradeep K. Tiwari, Mr. Sahilya Srivastava, Advocates for R- 7 to 11.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
12.11.2024: Heard Counsel for the Appellant as well as Ld. Counsel
appearing for Respondent No. 7 to 11.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order passed by Adjudicating
Authority dated 19.12.2023 by which the Adjudicating Authority has
directed the impleadment of Lalluram as a party in IA No. 146/2021.
3. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has pointed out that IA No. 146/2021
have been finally decided on 28.08.2024 refusing to grant relief as prayed by
the IRP in IA 146/2021.
4. Further it is submitted that by order of the same date Resolution Plan
in the proceeding has also been rejected and IA No. 129/2023 has also been
disposed of.
5. Counsel for the Respondent submits that in view of the subsequent
orders deciding IA 146/2024 finally and rejecting the Resolution Plan this
appeal has become infructuous. Counsel for the Appellant submits that they
have already challenged the order passed on 28.08.2024 by separate appeal
vide diary no. 55352/2024.
6. In view of the subsequent events noticed above we are of the view that
nothing survives to be decided in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed as
infructuous.
7. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinions on merits of
contention of either of the plan.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) sr/nn
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