Sandeep Kukkar vs M/S Siddarth Intercrafts Private ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Sandeep Kukkar ...Appellant

Versus Siddarth Intercrafts Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Advocate Naresh Kumar Sejvani, Advocate Kaushal Kumar Jain For Respondent:

ORDER

06.02.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Notice was issued

by Order dated 20.09.2022 to the Respondent but no one has appeared for

Respondent although notice has been served which fact is recorded earlier in

Order dated 23rd January, 2023. We thus proceed to hear the Appellant.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appeal has been filed

against the Order dated 22nd July, 2022 in I.A. No. 356/JPR/2021 which was

filed by the Operational Creditor on which a Direction has been issued by the

Adjudicating Authority to the Resolution Professional to convene a Meeting of

Committee of Creditors and appropriate order may be passed in the Meeting of

CoC regarding the claim of the Applicant being Synergy Marketing. 2

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Section 9 Application

was filed by the Operational Creditor namely A1 Clothings Pvt. Ltd. on which

Application CIRP was initiated vide Order dated 17.05.2019. It is submitted that

an I.A. No. 310 of 2021 was filed by the Appellant-Suspended Director of the

Corporate Debtor bringing the settlement with Operational Creditor under which

Settlement the dues of the Operational Creditors were all paid off and as per

terms and conditions of the Settlement, the Operational Creditor was to make

payment of the fees and expenses of the Resolution Professional. It is submitted

that the Resolution Professional has not filed the Application under Section 12A

of the Code hence the Suspended Director has to file an Application I.A. No. 310

of 2021 on which Application an order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority

on 27th January, 2022 asking the Operational Creditor to file a Reply and further

by a subsequent order dated 26.10.2021, the RP who was present was asked to

file the Report and file the Reply. It is submitted that the said Application I.A.

No. 310 of 2021 is still pending and on an Application being I.A. No.

356/JPR/2021 by another Operational Creditor, the Impugned Order has been

passed. It is submitted that Appellant has already settled with the Applicant of

I.A. No. 356/JPR/2021 and his dues are paid and he has no grievance

whatsoever.

4. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that I.A. No. 310 of 2021

filed by the Suspended Director bringing on record Settlement Agreement and

praying for closure of the proceeding, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have

considered the said Application. The mere fact that Resolution Professional has

Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 1017 of 2022 3

not filed the Application although Settlement Agreement required his dues to be

paid by the Operational Creditor does no inhibit the Adjudicating Authority to

exercise its jurisdiction under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016. We thus are of the

view that ends of justice will be served in disposing of Appeal directing the

Adjudicating Authority to take a final decision on I.A. No. 310/2021, no further

step needs to be taken in pursuance of the Order dated 22nd July, 2022 whose

implementation was already stayed by this Tribunal on 20th September, 2022.

In view of the foregoing discussions, this Appeal is allowed, order dated

22nd July, 2022 is set aside, the Appeal is disposed of directing the Adjudicating

Authority to dispose of the Application I.A. No. 310 of 2021 expeditiously in

accordance with law.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Basant/nn

Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 1017 of 2022