Suresh Narayan Singh vs Tayo Rolls Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1442 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The costs imposed on an intervenor in insolvency proceedings may be set aside where the intervenor, though repeatedly obstructive, is given a single opportunity and cautioned against unnecessary intervention in future, the Tribunal exercising its discretion to relieve the intervenor of the monetary order in lieu of a warning.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Suresh Narayan Singh ...Appellant
Vs
Tayo Rolls Limited ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Sumana Raychaudhuri, Ms. Abhigya and Ms. Anamika, Advocates. For Respondent:
ORDER
17.12.2019: This appeal has been preferred by 'Suresh Narayan Singh',
who is authorised representative of 284 workers of 'Tayo Rolls Limited'. Earlier,
he has preferred different appeals one against order rejecting his application
under Section 9 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against
'Tayo Rolls Limited'. When 'Tayo Rolls Limited' (Corporate Debtor) filed
application under Section 10 for its Corporate Insolvency Resolution, 'Suresh
Narayan Singh' - Appellant opposed the same, which means by one appeal he
wants to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against 'Tayo Rolls
Limited' and in another appeal he opposes the Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process under Section 10.
2. However, this Appellate Tribunal subsequently allowed the appeal
preferred by 'Suresh Narayan Singh' pursuant to which Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process has been initiated against 'Tayo Rolls Limited' on 5th April,
2019.
-2-
3. During the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process one CA was filed by
'Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited' for replacement of the Resolution
Professional - 'Ms. Vinita Agarwal' by 'Mr. Anish Agarwal'. Another CA 840/2019
was filed with similar prayer. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal), Kolkata Bench, Kolkata by impugned order dated 30th October, 2019
taking into consideration the submission made by the 'Jharkhand Bijli Vitran
Nigam Limited' and others, replaced the Resolution Professional.
4. Now, grievance of the Appellant is that on the Appellant - 'Suresh Narayan
Singh', who intervened in the said petition preferred before the Adjudicating
Authority, a cost of Rs.1 Lakh has been imposed.
5. We have noticed the manner in which the Appellant - 'Suresh Narayan
Singh' has worked for either stalling the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
or intervening to delay the proceedings.
6. However, to give one opportunity to the Appellant - 'Suresh Narayan
Singh', who claims to be representative of 284 workers, we set aside the part of
the impugned order dated 30th October, 2019 whereby a cost of Rs.1 Lakh has
been imposed on the Appellant. The Appellant must be cautious in future and
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1442 of 2019 -3- not make unnecessary intervention in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process.
7. The appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial)
[Justice Venugopal M.] Member (Judicial) am/sk
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1442 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