Sanjay Bhandari vs Durgesh Kumar Sharma
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 564 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellate tribunal declined to entertain an appeal against the dismissal of a Section 9 application, reasoning that where the underlying application has been rejected, there is no occasion for appellate interference with the reasons recorded in that rejection, and the Tribunal therefore disposed of the appeal by observing that observations made in the impugned order are not to be treated as adverse to the appellant so as to found any further action against him.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Sanjay Bhandari Director Rangraj Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus Durgesh Kumar Sharma Proprietor Salasar Builders ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Bhandari, Appellant in person. For Respondent:
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
24.05.2022: Heard Appellant appearing in person. By this Appeal the
order dated 25.01.2022 has been challenged to the limited extent in so far as
observations have been made with regard to the Appellant herein who was a
Director of the Corporate Debtor against whom Section 9 Application was filed
by Respondent No.1. Section 9 application has been rejected by the impugned
order.
2. Appellant appearing in person submits that the observation made in order
that there was active collusion between the Operational Creditor and the
Corporate Debtor to defraud the other creditors is not correct. He submits that
there is no other creditor of the Corporate Debtor, hence, the observations were
made without there being any material.
Cont'd.../ 2
3. In the facts of the present case, specifically when Application under
Section 9 has been rejected, we see no reason to entertain this Appeal. We,
however, observe that the observations made in Para 5 of the impugned order
may not be treated to any adverse observation against the Appellant so as to
initiate any further action. With these observations, the Appeal is disposed of.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)
[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 564 of 2022
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