Tribunals and CommissionsFull Bench(2024) 02 NCLAT CK 3588

CA Rajeev Bansal vs State Tax Officer-2

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi · Decided on 14 February 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson · Barun Mitra, Member (Technical) · Arun Baroka, Member (Technical)
CASE NUMBER
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 101 of 2024 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 102 of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 326 words

O R D E R

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that I.A. No.152 of 2023 which was only for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. Adjudicating Authority vide impugned order allowed the application and has also directed that claim may be admitted. It is submitted that there was no consideration on merits of the case.

Issue Notice. Requisites along with process fee be filed within three days. Let Reply be filed by the Respondent within two weeks. Two weeks for Rejoinder.

List this Appeal on 8th April, 2024.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 102 of 2024

Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 304 of 2021. The Application was filed by the Respondent No.1 challenging the decision of the Liquidator by which claim was partially rejected. The Adjudicating Authority after considering the submission has issued direction in paragraph 59 to the following effect:

“….59. In view of these contentions, the liquidator is directed to re-appraise the evidence produced before him by the applicant and seek clarification, if, any, from the applicant in regard to the same before.”

Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Liquidator submits that Liquidator has taken a decision and he has already filed an Application under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 impugning the transaction.

Be as it may, Adjudicating Authority having been satisfied that case require re-appraisal of the evidence, and further the Adjudicating Authority has permitted the applicant to file further materials and evidence before the Liquidator.

We are of the view that Liquidator need to re-appraise the material and take a fresh decision in accordance with law. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority having directed the liquidator to re-appraise the evidence which decision has yet to be taken, we see no reason to entertain the appeal at this stage. The Appeal is dismissed with the above observations.