The Best Towers Private Limited vs Reliance Communications Limited & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 09 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an order admitting a corporate insolvency resolution process has been stayed by the Appellate Tribunal and that stay is later vacated, the period during which the stay operated may see developments affecting the corporate debtor's creditors, and the Resolution Professional is therefore entitled to issue a fresh public announcement inviting claims as on the date of that announcement rather than being bound to the original commencement date.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: The Best Towers Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus The Reliance Communications Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Karan Verma, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Vaijayant Paliwal, Ms. Charu Bansal and Ms. Kirti Gupta, Advocates for R-1.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
12.08.2024 : Heard Counsel for the Parties.
2. This Appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 26.10.2023
passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority in I.A. 329/2021. I.A. No.
329/2021 was filed by the Appellant praying for setting aside the
advertisement dated 07.05.2019 inviting the submission of the Claim.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process (`CIRP') commenced on 15.05.2018, hence the Claim
should have been filed as on the commencement date 15.05.2018 whereas
Resolution Professional (`RP') has given a fresh Notice on 07.05.2019.
4. Learned Counsel for the RP submits that the fresh Notice was issued.
In view of the fact that in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 255 to 260 of 2018, there
was a stay by the Appellate Tribunal which was vacated only on 30.04.2019
and the Notice was issued inviting the fresh claim.
5. We have heard Counsel for the Parties and perused the record.
6. Adjudicating Authority in Paragraphs 2.2 & 2.3 has noticed the
aforesaid fact which are as follows:
"2.2. In the meantime, the order of initiation of insolvency proceeding dated 15.05.2018 was stayed by the Hon'ble NCLAT New Delhi vide Order dated 30.05.2018 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 255- 256, 257-258 and 259-260 all of 2018. The order of stay dated 30.05.2018 was vacated on 30.04.2019 and therefore, the Order in CP (IB) 1387 /2017 got restored.
2.3. The IRP thereafter issued a fresh notice on
07.05.2019, in terms of Section 13 (1) (B) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Code-2016, inviting claims from the stakeholders/ creditors as on 07.05.2019."
7. When there was a stay by the Appellate Tribunal which was vacated
only on 30.04.2019. We see no error in Public Announcement issued by the
RP inviting the Claims on 07.05.2019.
8. Learned Counsel for the RP has rightly submitted that during the period
when the proceedings were stayed certain developments might have taken
place and hence the Claims were again invited on 07.05.2019.
9. We do not find any error in the Notice dated 07.05.2019 which warrant
any interference by the Adjudicating Authority. We thus, do not find any error
in the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the I.A. filed by
the Appellant.
There is no merit in Appeal. Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 09 of 2024 2 of 2
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