Shyam Sunder Daga vs Coral Infragold Pvt. Ltd
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1616 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order rests on a procedural principle: a point not raised before the Adjudicating Authority is not ordinarily entertained for the first time in appellate proceedings, and the appellant is left to raise it before the Adjudicating Authority by application supported by affidavit, leaving it to that authority to decide whether the proposed monetisation of the promoters' flats can be set off against the directed deposit.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Shyam Sunder Daga ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Coral Infragold Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent(s) Through Its RP Present: For Appellant : Mr. Amol Vyas, Advocate For Respondents :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 16.08.2024: This appeal has been filed by the Promoters of the
Corporate Debtor challenging the order passed by the Adjudicating
Authority dated 12.06.2024 by which order Adjudicating Authority has
issued following direction:
"As a confidence measure, Promoters/Suspended Directors are directed to deposit Rs. 1.5 Crore in two monthly instalments before this Bench and the said amount shall be used in the project/repayment of liability. List the matter on 22.07.2024".
2. Counsel for the Appellant submit that Appellant has already informed
the Resolution Professional that the six flats belonging to the Daga family in
9th Floor, the promoters have waived their right and the said flats can be
monetise and used by the RP for carrying out the further constructions and
Adjudicating Authority instead of directing the Appellant to deposit Rs. 1.5
Crore would have asked the RP to monetise the said flats by allotment with -2-
the no objection of the bank who has charge over flats. Perusal of the order
indicate that issue was not raised by the appellant before the Adjudicating
Authority.
3. In View of the above, we grant liberty to the appellant to file an
application with appropriate affidavit before the Adjudicating Authority
brining relevant facts regarding waiver of the rights on 9th Floor of six flats
belonging to the promoters and it is for the Adjudicating Authority to
consider as to whether by monetising the said flats the amount which have
been directed to the appellant to be deposited can be waived/adjusted.
4. With the above liberty, we dispose of the appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) sr/nn Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1616 of 2024
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