AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
16.01.2026: I.A. No. 4975 of 2025
This is an application praying for condonation of 15 days delay in filing the appeal. This appeal has been filed by the Suspended Board of Directors challenging the order passed dated 21.04.2025 in IA No. 5081 of 2023. An additional-affidavit has been filed by the appellant in support of the application wherein paragraph 10.1 appellant has given the sequence of the events and dates explaining the 15 days delay in filing the appeal. The case of the appellant is that order dated 21.04.2025 passed in the application 5081/2023 appellant were not party and they were not aware of the order and they came to know only on 27.05.2025 and thereafter in para 10.1 reasons have been given for explaining the delay of 15 days.
Counsel for the respondent no.2 who has filed the reply to the delay condonation submits that suspended board of directors were present through counsel on 07.05.2025 and 20.05.2025 and they cannot be allowed to say that they were not aware of the proceedings of the order. Counsel for the appellant submitted that their presence on 07.05.2025 and 20.05.2025 is not denied but they were present in the application filed under Section 45 of the IBC and suspended director were not made party in the application they were not aware of the application or orders or any proceedings therein. It is not disputed that appellant were not party to the IA 5081/2023. We thus find sufficient cause shown in the application and additional-affidavit filed by the appellant explaining the 15 days delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Delay condoned.
CA (AT)(Ins) No. 1271 of 2025
Heard counsel for the appellant, Ld. Counsel appearing for R2 and Ld. Counsel for the liquidator.
This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 21.04.2025 in IA No. 5081 of 2023. IA was filed by the respondent no.2 who is the Operational Creditor/ Landlord praying for various reliefs which noticed in para-1. Adjudicating Authority took a view that RP has already filed an application IA No. 3954 of 2022 hence for the same purpose two applications cannot be prosecuted. Hence the Adjudicating Authority closed the IA No. 5081 of 2023 by passing following order:-
“7.Accordingly, the IA- 5081/2023 stands closed.
8.RP is directed to provide the copy of the pending application to the Ld. Counsel for the applicant/landowner, so that they can take informed the decision and support and assist the court.”
Appellant who is the suspended board of director aggrieved by the said order has come up in this appeal and submits that when the RP had already filed the application u/s 45 the another application was not maintainable. He submits that in application under Section 45 can be filed only by the RP and right to creditors to file the application arises only when no application is filed by RP or liquidator. He submits that in the present case RP having already filed an application under Section 45 no liberty ought to have been granted to the respondent no.2 to support and assist the court. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to facts and sequence of the event.
In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that proper course open is for the liquidator to file an application for making the respondent no.2 as party to Section 45 application as a proper party which needs to be considered and decided by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law.
We are of the view that Adjudicating Authority to take a decision on the said application giving opportunity to the appellant without being influenced by any observation made in the impugned order.
With these observations, appeal is disposed of.