Vivek Raheja vs Pramod Kumar Sharma

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal12 July 2023Ashok Bhushan

CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 810 of 2023

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal's order rests on no reasoning of its own beyond a bare conclusion. It declines to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's order because the Adjudicating Authority had granted the Appellant liberty to approach the Resolution Professional with the requisite majority under the Regulations, and the Appellant's counsel accepted that course. The order does not state or interpret any rule of law, and therefore no ratio decidendi can be extracted. NO_RATIO: The appeal is disposed of by a bare dismissal on the basis of counsel's submissions and the liberty already granted below; no legal principle is stated or applied in the text.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH,NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 810 of 2023 &I.A. No. 2731 of 2023IN THE MATTER OF:

Vivek Raheja ...Appellant

Versus

Pramod Kumar Sharma, Resolution Professional ...Respondent

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Shivam Gautam, Mr. Karan Gandhi, Advocates

For Respondent: Mr. Mohak Sharma, Mr. A. Anand, Mr. Sajal Jain,

Mr. Supriyo Banerjee, Advocates

ORDER

12.07.2023: This appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.04.2023

passed in I.A. No. 897/2019 filed by the Authorised Representative, (the

Appellant). The Adjudicating Authority observed that authorised representative

is entitled to proceed with the matter in accordance with law if they have any

grievance with the RP.

2. Learned Counsel for RP submits that as per the Regulations, the request

by AR should contain consent of 33% of the allottees as on date to enable the RP

to convene the meeting of the CoC and to consider in the meeting the agenda.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant shall make

appropriate request to the RP with the requisite majority as required by

Regulation in view of the Regulations 18 of the CIRP Regulations 2016. The

Adjudicating Authority had already granted such liberty through the authorised

agency like CDSL or NSDL.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 810 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2731 of 2023

4. We, thus, are of the view that there is no ground to interfere with the

order impugned.

With the above observations, the Appeal is disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

ss/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 810 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2731 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