Sunil Jain vs Punjab National Bank & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 430 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The only ground of appeal, that the corporate resolution process was not completed in accordance with law, cannot be decided in an appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's order where the resolution plan has already been approved and the approval order is under challenge in a separate appeal; that issue must be agitated in that other appeal. An appellate forum will not interfere with an order of the Adjudicating Authority where that authority has made no finding on the point said to be wrongly decided, since there is then no determination for the appellate body to review.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Sunil Jain ...Appellant Versus Punjab National Bank & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gautam Singh and Mr. Pratiksha Sharma, Advocates
ORDER
03.08.2018 This is an appeal by the shareholder/promoter of the
'Corporate Debtor' against the order dated 19th June, 2018, which reads as
follows:
"Ld. Counsel for the Resolution Professional (RP), financial
creditor, operational creditor, for Mr. Sunil Jain and RGW Vyapar is
present :
CA (IB) No. 536/KB/2017 and CA( IB) No. 439/2018 is
brought to our notice by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner
in the respective applications. CA (IB) No. 536/KB/2017 is filed by
the suspended director with a prayer to issue direction for remove
RP as well as to initiate enquiry against the RP. CA (IB) No.
363/KB/2017 has already been disposed of vide Order dated
13/03/2018. Therefore, the prayer in CA (IB) No. 536/KB/2018
become infructuous. Moreover, if any disciplinary proceeding is to
be initiated against the RP the petitioner is to move before the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. With the above said
observations the CA (IB) No. 536/KB/2018 is disposed of. CA (IB) 2
No. 439/KB/2018 filed by the same petitioner for having early
disposal of the CA (IB) No. 536/KB/2018. As CA (IB) No.
536/KB/2017 is disposed of hence CA (IB) No. 439/KB/2018
requires no consideration. It is dismissed.
CA (IB) No. 145/KB/2018 in CA (IB) No.
363/KB/2018 filed u/s 43 read with Section 66 of the Code came
up for consideration on today. No reply affidavit has been filed.
For hearing the CA list it on 11/07/2018.
CA (IB) No. 145/KB/2018 is not traceable. Office is
hereby directed to trace out the CA and place it on record."
The only ground taken in this case is that the 'corporate resolution
process' has not been completed in accordance with law. However, such issue
cannot be decided in this appeal, as the 'resolution plan' has already been
approved and the order of approval by Adjudicating Authority is pending
consideration in another appeal. The appellant, if so advised, may appear on
behalf of the Board of Directors/shareholders in the said appeal.
The Adjudicating Authority having not given any finding with regard to the
completion of 'Resolution Process', we are not inclined to interfere with the order.
The appeal is dismissed with aforesaid liberty. No cost.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Member (Judicial)
/ns/uk/
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 430 of 2018
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