Subrata Moindranath Maity vs Amit Chandrashekhar Poddar & Ors

Subrata Maity ....Appellant Vs.

Mr. Amit C. Poddar & Ors. ...Respondents For Appellant: Mr. Amir Arsiwala, Mr. Yash Jariwala, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Bharat Gupta, Mr. Varun Tyagi, Advocates for R1. Mr. Rajesh Kr. Gautam, Mr. Anant Gautam, Mr. Nipun Sharma, Advocates for PNB

ORDER

13.10.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned

Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.09.2022 passed

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

Bench, Court-II, by which order in place of the Appellant who was erstwhile

Liquidator of 'Seam Industries Ltd.', one Mr. Amit C. Poddar has been

appointed as a Liquidator.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order contends that

the Appellant has not been issued any notice and he was not served the copy

of the Application filed by the Stakeholders Consultation Committee seeking

appointment of Mr. Amit C. Poddar.

4. We have perused the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The

Adjudicating Authority has noted in the order that the Appellant was arrested 2

by the CBI and due to which 116 days was lost due to incapability of the

Appellant to act as a Liquidator. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends

that the Appellant was granted bail immediately.

5. Be that as it may, the fact that the criminal prosecution is going on

against the Appellant and he was arrested by the CBI, there is no error

committed by the Adjudicating Authority in passing the impugned order by

replacing the Appellant with another Liquidator. The Liquidator does not have

any personal right to continue in the Liquidation Process and the reasons

which have been noted in the order are sufficient to exercise even the inherent

power by NCLT to replace the Liquidator. It is not a fit case to interfere in

exercise of our Appellate Jurisdiction.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also contended that there is no

provision in law for replacement of Liquidator by the Adjudicating Authority.

The present is a case where inherent power can be exercised by the

Adjudicating Authority to do substantial justice.

7. The Appeal is dismissed with the above observations.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1234 of 2022