Shyam Kishan Saraf And Anr vs Atul Kumar Kansal And Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 950 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority is not bound to decide, in an application by a stakeholder that seeks to have the Committee of Creditors reconsider or remand a resolution plan, those prayers that are not properly before it; the question of approval of the resolution plan remains pending before the Adjudicating Authority, which is to consider all relevant issues when it decides that question, so a prayer seeking remand of the whole plan to the Committee of Creditors cannot be granted in such a stakeholder application.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 950 of 2023 IN THE MATTER OF: Shyam Kishan Saraf & Anr. ...Appellants Vs. Atul Kumar Resolution Professional of Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present:
For Appellant: Mr. Shyam Kishan Saraf, in person
For Respondent: Mr. Swapnil Gupta, Mr. Ahmar, Advocates
ORDER
26.07.2023: Heard Mr. Shyam Kishan Saraf who appears in person and
filed this Appeal challenging the order of Adjudicating Authority dated
07.06.2023 by which IA No. 2988/2023 has been rejected. IA No. 2988/2023
has been filed by the Appellant with following prayers: -
a) Decide CA 1500/2019, CA 1501/2019
and IA 3089/2021 before deciding IA
5003/2021 for Approval of Modified Resolution
Plan.
b) Remand back the whole resolution plan to
be considered afresh by the CoC.
c) Direct the RP to release the
amended/correct IM (last 2 years audited balance
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 950 of 2023 1 sheet and proper detail of assets to be included in
IM) as per Section 29(1) of IBC,2016.
d) Direct the RP to provide the altered Information
Memorandum to the Applicants in which Claim of
the Applicants are also factored in, before the final
disposal of application for approval of Modified
Resolution Plan in the interest of justice and to for
a just and fair decision.
e) Direct the RP to provide the Applicants seat in
CoC after admitting the claim of Applicants as
per Form C filed with RP.
f) Direct the RP to provide the Applicants with
complete IA 5003/2021 so that the Applicants
can also raise any other objections against the
illegality in the modified Resolution Plan against
Section 30(2) of IBC, 2016.
g) Decide all IA's and objections of Aggrieved
Applicants before IA 5003/2021 filed for
approval of modified Resolution Plan so that
requisite changes can be made in Information
Memorandum and Final Modified Resolution
Plan.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 950 of 2023 2
h) Order proper Forensic Audit to be conducted
before taking any decision on IA 5003/2021
filed for approval of Resolution Plan, so that all
the fraudulent/preferential transactions could
be identified and accordingly reversed, to
recover the assets lost by CD in irregular
transactions in light of fraud/overselling
admitted by RP to the tune of approx. 150-170
crores.
i) Pass any other order which may be deemed
fit and proper in light of the facts and
circumstances of the present case and in the
interest of justice."
2. Learned Counsel for Respondent submits that CA 1500/2019 and CA
1501/2019 has been reserved on 13.07.2023. The prayer of the Appellant to
remand back the whole Resolution Plan to be considered afresh by the CoC
cannot be considered and decided in the application filed by the Appellant.
The question of approval of the plan is still pending before the Adjudicating
Authority and it is for the Adjudicating Authority to consider all issues at that
time.
3. We are of the view that application filed by the Applicant is rightly
rejected. The prayers made in the application could not be allowed as
prayed.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 950 of 2023 3
4. Learned Counsel for Respondent submits that Applicant has been filing
several application and obstructing the proceedings before the Adjudicating
Authority. We, thus, are of the view that there is no merit in the Appeal, the
appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
ss/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 950 of 2023 4
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