national company law appellate tribunal

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: In a case involving an appeal against an order related to pre-CIRP dues and expenses, a division bench comprising of Rakesh Kumar Jain,* J., and Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), dismissed the appeal as the appeal was deemed infructuous following the closure of the CIRP proceedings on 15.05.2023, with control of the company returning to the company itself.

Brief Facts

The present appeal is against the order dated 29-03-2023, passed by the Adjudicating Authority, Kolkata.

The impugned order pertains to an application filed, in CP (IB) No. 1986/KB/2019, by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) of McLeod Russel India Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) read with Regulation 33 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. CP (IB) No. 1986/KB/2019 was originally filed by the Financial Creditor against the Corporate Debtor and was admitted on 10-02-2023.

Subsequently, an appeal was filed against the admission order dated 10-02-2023, and this appeal was disposed of on 15-05-2023, closing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). During the pendency of the appeal, the IRP-respondent filed the above-mentioned application seeking directions for payments related to pre-CIRP dues and expenses.

Moot Point

Whether the Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to pass an order regarding the payment of pre-CIRP dues during the CIRP?

NCLAT’s Decision

After hearing both parties and examining the record, the Court held that the issue raised by the appellant, although attractive, no longer had relevance since the CIRP proceedings initiated by the order dated 10-02-2023 had been closed by the order dated 15-05-2023. The NCLAT held that the appeal had become infructuous due to the closure of the CIRP proceedings.

The NCLAT noted that with the CIRP concluded, the company’s control had reverted to the company itself, and the IRP was no longer in charge. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were imposed.

[SBI v. Ritesh Prakash Adatiya, 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 722, order dated 09-10-2023]

*Judgment by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr. Avrojyoti Chatterjee, Mr. Rajiv S. Roy, Ms. Jayasree Saha, Mr. Siddharth, Mr. Zoheb Khan, Counsel for the Appellants

Mr. Alok Kumar K., Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 (IRP)

Mr. Abhinav Tyagi, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.