national company law appellate tribunal

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal: In a case where an application is preferred seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order, a 3-member bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson, Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member), held that the Adjudicating Authority’s order for liquidation was justified, considering the lack of approval for the appellant’s Resolution Plan and the absence of other plans.

Brief Facts

The instant matter involves an application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order dated 15-06-2023. The appellant filed an e-appeal on 24-08-2023 against an order dated 15-06-2023.

The Appellant contended that the order dated 15.06.2023, which allowed I.A. No. 1487 of 2023, was not passed on the same date. This fact is evident from the order sheet of the same date, which indicated that the detailed order would follow. The detailed order on I.A. No. 1487 of 2023 was uploaded into the system on 31-07-2023 and made available on the website on 02-08-2023. The appellant received communication of the order from the Liquidator on 02-08-2023.

On the other hand, the Respondent contended that the Appellant was actively involved in the proceedings when the order was passed, and their counsel was present on that date.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The Court noted that the order dated 15-06-2023 explicitly stated, “Detailed order will follow.” It was evident that the order was not immediately available on that date. Given that the detailed order was uploaded on 31-07-2023, the Court held that the appeal filed on 24-08-2023 was not time-barred.

The Court reviewed the Adjudicating Authority’s order and observed that the appellant’s Resolution Plan had not been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) due to insufficient majority support (56.86% vote share). Furthermore, there were no other Resolution Plans in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

In light of these facts, the Court found no infirmity in the Adjudicating Authority’s decision to direct for liquidation. The Court also noted that the appellant, who was eligible to submit a plan, could participate in the Liquidation Proceeding by submitting an Expression of Interest when the Corporate Debtor is sold as a going concern.

The Court disposed of the appeal.

[Kamlesh Mehta v. Mirage Ceramics (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 704, order dated 06-10-2023]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty and Ms. Surbhi Anand, Counsel for the Appellants

Ms. Usha Singh, Counsel for the Respondent No. 3

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.