Sidhartha Chauhan vs Deepak Kumar Goyal
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1661 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a judgment setting aside an order closing the CIRP has revived the proceedings, the applications that were dismissed as infructuous on the strength of that closure stand revived with them, and the Adjudicating Authority, in restoring them, is not required to enter into the merits of the applications; the merits are to be heard in accordance with law when the applications are taken up for hearing, and the parties remain free to raise their pleas and defences at that stage.
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 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1661 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6047 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Sidharth Chauhan ...Appellants Versus Deepak Kumar Goyal ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Nalin Kohli Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Rajpal and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocates. For Respondents :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
11.09.2024: Heard Shri Nalin Kohli, Ld. Counsel appearing for the
appellant.
This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 13.06.2024
passed on the restoration application 31 of 2024. The application was filed by
the Resolution Professional for revival of IA No. 3685/2021, 4063/2021,
4290/2021, 4497/2021 and 4770/2021 in CP (AT) NO. 717/ ND/ 2019. The
said applications were dismissed as infructuous by Adjudicating Authority by
order dated 14.09.2023 relying on the order of the Adjudicating Authority
dated 24.05.2023 by which CIRP was closed under 12A. Subsequently, the
order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 24.05.2023 was set aside by the
order of this Tribunal dated 16.02.2024. After the order of NCLT we set aside
the application was filed for revival/ restoration of the applications which has
been allowed by impugned order.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the Appellate
Tribunal vide order dated 16.02.2024 has issued direction where one project
NCR Green has to be kept out of CIRP and with regard to another project CIRP
was to continue. He submits that those issues are required to be considered by
Adjudicating Authority. The order of this Tribunal dated 16.02.2024 was an
order setting aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority closing the CIRP.
When the CIRP has revived the applications have to be revived to be heard in
accordance with law on merits. At the time of restoration of the application
Adjudicating Authority was not required to enter into the submissions or
merits on the application.
3. Hence, we do not find any error in the restoration of the application it is
always open for the appellant to take his pleas when the applications are heard
on merits and raise defences when the applications are heard on merits. With
these observations, appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)
harleen/NN
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1661 of 2024 2 of 2
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