Uma Shankar Goenka vs Kailash Chander Jain Irp
- CitationCompany Appeal(AT) (Insolvency) No. 979 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellate tribunal allowed the withdrawal of an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 at the stage before the Committee of Creditors was constituted, on the basis that the withdrawal application was filed before that constitution and the operational creditor had been paid all outstanding dues, with no objection from the interim resolution professional or the operational creditor; consequently, the order initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process was set aside.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal(AT) (Insolvency) No. 979 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Uma Shankar Geonka ...Appellant (Suspended Director of Calzini Fashions Ltd.) Versus
Kailash Chandra Jain ...Respondents Interim Resolution Professional of Jayna Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Present: For Appellant : Ms. Pooja M. Saigal, Mr. Vaibhav Tyagi, Mr. Shubham Jaiswal and Mr. Simrat Passey, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Nihil Kr. Verma, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Rishabh Jain, Advocate for R-2
ORDER
08.09.2022 Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 03.08.2022 by which
the Adjudicating Authority has adjourned the Application I.A. No. 3657 of 2022
filed under Section 12A of IBC to 26.08.2022. This Appeal was heard by this
Tribunal on 17.08.2022 when we passed the following order:
"O R D E R 17.08.2022: Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Adjudicating Authority vide impugned order has adjourned the Section 12A application and asked the Petitioner
- Appellant to assure that claims which has been received by the IRP shall be addressed as per law. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Section 12A application was filed before constitution of the CoC, hence, there was no occasion for the Adjudicating Authority for issuing any direction in the impugned order. Submission needs scrutiny.
Issue notice. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 (IRP) and Respondent No. 2 accept notice. They may file Reply within two weeks. Rejoinder may be file within two weeks thereafter.2 List this Appeal on 08.09.2022. In the meantime, we stay the order dated 03.08.2022. It shall be open for the Adjudicating Authority to pass order on Section 12A application. We further observe that in the CIRP proceeding no further steps shall be taken."
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that on 26th August, 2022 the
Application was not heard. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the
Appellant that Section 12A Application was filed before the constitution of
Committee of Creditors and all outstanding dues of the Operational Creditor
have been paid including CIRP dues which was mentioned in paragraph-10 of
the Application.
4. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that IRP has also no objection as
well as 2nd Respondent that I.A. No. 3657/2022 be allowed which was filed before
the Adjudicating Authority.
5. Considering the aforesaid, we allow this Appeal by allowing I.A. No.
3657/2022 permitting withdrawal of Section 9 Application filed by Respondent
No. 2. Consequently, the order initiating CIRP dated 19.07.2022 is set aside.
6. The Appeal is allowed accordingly. Let a copy of this order be placed before
the Adjudicating Authority.
(Justice Ashok Bhushan) Chairperson
(Barun Mitra) Member(Technical) Akc/NN
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