Smt. K. Bharathi vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 114 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal because the impugned extension order merely gave effect to earlier directions of 18th and 19th December, 2018, and because any decision of the Committee of Creditors remained subject to the tribunal's own pending decision, so the appellant could not show any prejudice from the extension.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Smt. K. Bharathi ...Appellant
Vs.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 115 of 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Smt. K. Bharathi ...Appellant
Vs.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: - Mr. Vineet Subramani, Advocate.
For Respondents: - Mr. Sanjay Bhatt and Ms. Srishti Kapoor, Advocates for R-1.
ORDER
05.02.2019─ The Appellant- Smt. K. Bharathi claiming to be a
'Financial Creditor' is aggrieved of the order formulated by the
Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Division
Bench, Chennai, dated 21st January, 2019 by virtue of which 'Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process' period has been extended by 90 days with
effect from 20th December, 2018 with a direction to the 'Resolution
Professional' to hold 'Committee of Creditors' meetings in accordance
with the orders dated 18th December, 2018 and 19th December, 2018.
Contd/-..............
-2-
2. On plain reading of this order, it is manifestly clear that the
extension of period has been granted to comply with the directions given
in orders dated 18th December, 2018 and 19th December, 2018. However,
the decision taken by the 'Committee of Creditors' has been subjected to
the decision of this Appellate Tribunal as reflected in the order dated 7th
January, 2019 passed by this Appellate Tribunal.
3. It is manifestly clear that the impugned order has been passed to
carry out the earlier directions given on 18th December, 2018 and 19th
December, 2018. Even otherwise also, any decision taken by the
'Committee of Creditors' has been subjected to the decision of this
Appellate Tribunal. In this context, it is futile on the part of the Appellant
to contend that any prejudice has been caused to her.
4. There being no merit in this appeal, it is accordingly dismissed. No
cost.
(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member(Judicial) Ar/uk
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 114 & 115 of 2019
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