Shearson Investment And Trading ... vs Anil Goel, Liquidator

Shearson Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Shri Anil Goel, Liquidator ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aliya durafshan, Mr. Hitesh Sachar, Ms. Namita Jose, Advocates for the Appellants

For Respondent: Mr. Kanishk Khetan, Advocate for Liquidator

ORDER

05.11.2019 This appeal has been filed by the Appellant claiming to be a

'Shareholder' of 'M/s. Birla Cotsyn (India) Limited' (Corporate Debtor) against the

impugned order dated 24th September, 2019 passed in M.A. No. 2929/2019 in

C.P. (IB)-579/(MB)/2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National

Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, whereby the 'corporate

insolvency resolution process' (initiated initially by the 'Financial Creditor' -

'Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.') culminated into the order of

'Liquidation'. This 'Liquidation' order dated 24th September, 2019 has been

challenged in the present appeal. Although the appeal purports to challenge

the 'Liquidation' order, in substance the appeal seeks to quash all the orders

passed in the 'insolvency process' on the basis that the initial application itself

could not have been admitted on the ground of limitation. 2

Heard learned counsel for the Appellant.

In this matter application under Section 7 of the 'I&B Code' was admitted

by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench,

Mumbai on 20th November, 2018. Without challenging the same, this appeal

has been filed after impugned liquidation order dated 24th September, 2019 was

passed raising grounds that the initial application admitted under Section 7 of

the 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, 'the I&B Code') on 20th

November, 2018 was time barred and so all orders passed in the corporate

insolvency process should be quashed.

Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the order admitting the

application under Section 7 of the 'I&B Code' itself was time barred. The counsel

wants this Tribunal to look into the question of limitation with regard to the

application admitted on 20th November, 2018. It is stated that the question of

limitation goes to the root of the matter. Learned counsel for the Respondent is

submitting that he can show that the matter was within limitation. He is trying

to refer to documents.

We are of the view that question of limitation is a mixed question of law

and facts. The initial order of admission of Section 7 application has not been

challenged before us. If the Appellant was aggrieved by such admission of

Section 7 application by which 'corporate insolvency resolution process' started

and various orders were passed, the Appellant should have challenged those

orders within the limitation in appeal. Sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the 'I&B

Code' permits this Tribunal to consider an impugned order if the appeal is filed

within 30 days. This Appellate Tribunal has powers to condone the delay of 15

days (and no more) over and above the period of appeal.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1148 of 2019 3

We do not find any reason to entertain this appeal which purports to

challenge the liquidation order, but in effect seeks quashing of admission order

and others for which this appeal is time bound. The appeal does not spell out

or show how order of 'Liquidation' (impugned order) is bad or illegal.

We decline to entertain this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed

at the stage of admission. No costs.

[ Justice A.I.S. Cheema ] Member (Judicial)

[Justice Venugopal M.] Member (Judicial)

[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial) /ns/sk

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1148 of 2019