Shamsun Muktar vs Central Bank Of India And Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1606 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order contains no reasoning of its own beyond declining to interfere. It records the respondent's submission that the Supreme Court in Dilip B Jiwrajka v Union of India upheld the validity of Section 95, but it does not adopt that proposition as the basis of its decision; the appeal is disposed of with a bare "we see no reason to entertain the Appeal." The rule on which the disposal rests is therefore not stated in the text. NO_RATIO: the order disposes of the appeal by a bare refusal to entertain it, and the only legal proposition in it is a counsel's submission about another case that the Tribunal does not itself adopt or reason from.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Shamsun Muktar ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Central Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents : Suchi Singh, Advocate for R-1. Darshit Dave, Advocate for R-2.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
12.03.2024: This appeal has been filed against the order dated
26.10.2023, by which order, I.A. No. 4880 of 2023 filed by the Applicant to
pass an interim order on the ground that the constitutionality/validity of
Section 95(1) of the IBC is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The
Adjudicating Authority did not pass any interim order on the merit in Section
95 petition. The Appellant aggrieved by the said order has come up in this
Appeal.
2. The Leaned Counsel for the Respondent/Central Bank of India has filed
the Reply Affidavit which is taken on record.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has already decided the matter in the case of 'Dilip B
Jiwrajka v Union of India' upholding the constitutionality/validity of
Section 95 qua, consequence of which is that proceedings under Section 95
has to be proceeded in accordance with law. -2-
4. We see no reason to entertain the Appeal. The Appeal is disposed of.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)
R.N./N.N.
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