Sumedha Khanna vs Pradeep Kumar Kaushik Interim ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 886 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal declined to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's order directing verification, finding no error in the reasons given for it, and held that objections personal to the appellants concerning their own allotments may be raised by appropriate application before the Adjudicating Authority rather than in this appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 886 of 2023 & I.A. No. 3000 of 2023 IN THE MATTER OF: Sumedha Khanna & Anr. ....Appellants
Vs.
Pradeep Kumar Kaushik ....Respondents Resolution Professional of Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Present: For Appellants: Mr. Rishi Kapoor, Mr. Lakshay Agarwal, Advocates. For Respondents: Ms. Aishwarya, Advocate for Ex-RP. Mr. R. V. Prabhat, Mr. Vinay Yadav, Mr. Abhinav M. Goel, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Ishan Choudhary, Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Ms. Vijeta Singh, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Advocates.
ORDER
19.07.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant. This appeal has
been filed against the order passed by Adjudicating Authority dt. 26.05.2023.
Against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority we have already
disposed of two appeals. One appeal being Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 876
& 877 of 2023 and the one appeal earlier by order dated 06.07.2023 by not
interfering in the impugned order.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant sought to raise certain issues
regarding allotments of the flats to the appellant and has raised issues
regarding incompetency of the IRP to proceed with the verification.
The Adjudicating Authority has given reasons for passing the order for
verification. We do not find any error in the said order. With regard to
Cont'd.../ -2-
issues pertaining to the appellant themselves it is always open for the appellant
to raise appropriate objections or application before the Adjudicating Authority.
With these observations, the appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
sa/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 886 of 2023
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