Samyak Projects Private Limited vs Mr. Atul Kumar Kansal & Others
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1504
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an adjudicating authority has made observations on an application but has not taken a final decision on it, and has called for a report from a Court Commissioner that is yet to be submitted, the application cannot be held to be disposed of; it remains pending for adjudication after receipt of that report, and an order that treats it as disposed of is to be modified accordingly. Where an interim order has already been passed on an application, a subsequent disposal of that application without further interim relief cannot be faulted.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Atul Kumar Kansal ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Kohli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Monish Surendran, Ms. Nishtha Grover and Mr. Juvas Rawal, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Swapnil Gupta, Mr. Vaibhav Mendiratta, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
18.01.2024: Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Appeal has been
filed against the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority
disposing of CA No.891 of 2019 and CA No.253 of 2019.
2. In CA No.253 of 2019 prayer was made to pass an interim order. The
Adjudicating Authority has already passed an interim order in Para 29, hence,
the disposal of CA No.253 of 2019 cannot be faulted with.
3. Both the counsel submits that CA No.891 of 2019 was an application
filed by the Resolution Professional under Section 43-45 whose prayers have
been quoted in Para 6 of the order.
4. Perusal of the impugned order indicate that the Adjudicating Authority
although has made certain observations in Para 26 but no final decision has
been taken in CA No.891 of 2019. The Adjudicating Authority has already
Cont'd.../ -2-
called for report from the Court Commissioner, as indicated in Para 26 of the
order. The report is yet to be submitted. CA No.891 of 2019 cannot be held
to be disposed of, hence, order in Para 29 is modified to the extent that CA
No.891 of 2019 is not held to be disposed of and shall be treated to be pending
for further adjudication after receipt of the report of the Court Commissioner.
5. Appeal is disposed of with observations as above.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1504 & 1505 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