Zapdor Engineering Private Limited vs Transrail Lighting Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1467 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning rests on the following points, with the stated ground for each. The delay in filing an appeal is condoned where the appellant shows sufficient cause, here the late receipt of the certified copy followed by an unavailability of counsel during a vacation period. The Adjudicating Authority did not err in rejecting an application by a corporate debtor seeking stay of proceedings on a financial creditor's application under Section 7 of the Code where that application has not yet been admitted; the existence of arbitral awards and a High Court order directing release of money in the corporate debtor's favour did not, on this reasoning, warrant such a stay. A corporate debtor's ability to raise all available contentions in opposing a Section 7 application is preserved, and such contentions may be pressed at the hearing of that application, so rejection of the stay does not foreclose the debtor's defences on the merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Zapdor Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Transrail Lighting Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Advocate Ankit A Shah, Advocate Aditya Sinha. For Respondent: Advocate Sumit Kansal, Advocate Yash Bajpai.
ORDER
13.12.2022: This is an Application (I.A. No. 4620/2022) praying for
condonation of delay of 14 days in filing the Appeal. The Grounds taken in
the Affidavit is that the certified copy of the Order was received on
20/10/2022 and thereafter due to Deepawali Vacation, Learned Counsel for
the Appellant was unavailable and returned only on 15.11.2022. Cause
shown sufficient. Delay is condoned.
2. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. This Appeal has been filed
against the Order dated 04th October, 2022 passed in I.A. No. 4131 of 2022
filed by the Appellant who was the Corporate Debtor for staying the
proceedings under Section 7 of the Code has been rejected.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant has obtained
two arbitral awards and order from the High Court for releasing the money in
favour of the Appellant.
-2-
4. Section 7 Application which has been filed by the Financial Creditor has
not yet been admitted. It is always open for the Appellant to raise all issues
available and oppose section 7 Application however we are of the view that
Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the Application
(I.A. No. 4131 of 2022) filed for stay of the Section 7 Application.
5. With these observations, the Appeal is dismissed. We make it clear that
it shall be open for the Appellant as well as the Respondent to raise all
contentions available at the time of hearing of Section 7 Application.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
Basant/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1467/2022
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