AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Heard the Learned Counsel Mr. Subramanian appearing for the ‘Petitioner’/‘Appellant’ in I.A. No.291 of 2023 in Company Appeal (AT)(CH) (Ins) No.80 of 2023.
There is no ‘Reply’/‘Response’/‘Counter’ filed on behalf of the Respondent/Liquidator.
According to the ‘Petitioner’/‘Appellant’, the instant Company Appeal should have been filed within three days from the date of passing of the ‘Impugned Order’ in IA/IBC/1393/CHE/2022 in CP/1087/IB/2018 dated 17.01.2023 and that the instant Company Appeal came to be filed before this ‘Tribunal’ on 01.03.2023. In this process, there has occasioned a delay of 14 days [beyond the 30 days period prescribed as per Section 61(1) of the Code] and the reason attributed for the delay of 14 days is that the ‘Petitioner’/‘Appellant’ being a public sector corporation had internal discretion about the feasibility of pursuing the instant Appeal against his order and hence there has occasioned a delay of 14 days in preferring the ‘Appeal’ which is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the aforesaid reason.
Taking into consideration the fact that the instant Company Appeal came to be filed after the expiry of 30 days period but within the outer limit (30 + 15 =45 days) namely on forty fourth day, this ‘Tribunal’ by exercising its subjective discretion as per Section 61 of the Code condones and administers the delay of 14 days in preferring the instant Company Appeal and allows I.A. No.291 of 2023 in Comp. App (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.80 of 2023 in the interest of justice. No cost.
Comp. App (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.80 of 2023
Heard Mr. Subramanian Learned Counsel appearing for the ‘Appellant’ in Comp. App (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.80 of 2023 and Mr. Arvind Rajagopal, Learned Counsel appearing for the ‘Respondent’/‘Liquidator’ of M/s. Sapphire Spinners India Pvt. Ltd. Coimbatore.
According to the ‘Appellant’, the IA/IBC/1393/CHE/2022 in CP/1087/IB/2018 was filed by the ‘Appellant’ as Petitioner before the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ to set aside the rejection order of the ‘Respondent’ in refusing to admit the claim of the ‘Appellant and include the ‘Appellant’ in the list of shareholders of the ‘Corporate Debtor’/‘Company’.
The ‘Adjudicating Authority’/‘Tribunal’ (National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench-II, Chennai) while passing the ‘Impugned Order’ in IA/IBC/1393/CHE/2022 in CP/1087/IB/2018 (filed by the ‘Appellant’/‘Petitioner’ had observed the following:-
“This application has been filed to admit the claim of Rs.12,46,31,556/- filed by the Applicant, M/s. Cotton Corporation of India Limited.
The Applicant states that the claim was filed belatedly by 914 days and the same was rejected by the Ld. Liquidator, hence, this application, Ld. Liquidator, Mr.G. Gunasekaran, is present in person states that the liquidation process is completed and all the assets were disposed off and the amount received was distributed among the creditors.
Ld. Counsel for Applicant further makes a statement that the entire proceeds of the sale of the property of the CD were distributed to the Financial Creditors. Nothing was available for the Operational Creditors.
In view of the statement made by the Liquidator, nothing could have been paid to the present Applicant. Even otherwise, after the process is complete this application could not be considered and entertained” and ultimately dismisses the said application.
A mere perusal of the ‘Impugned Order’ dated 17.01.2023 IA/IBC/1393/CHE/2022 in CP/1087/IB/2018 latently and patently indicates that the said ‘interlocutory application’ 1397/CHE/2022 in main Company Petition CP/1087/IB/2018 was projected before the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ to defend the claim of Rs.12,46,31,556/- filed by the ‘Appellant’/‘Petitioner’.
In the instant case, it is brought to the notice of this ‘Tribunal’ that on 25.01.2019 CIRP was initiated against the ‘Corporate Debtor’ in CP/1067/IB/2018 and thereafter the ‘liquidation’ was passed against the ‘Corporate Debtor’ on 19.12.2019. It is not in dispute that the IA/IBC/1393/CHE/2022 in CP/1087/IB/2018 was preferred by the ‘Appellant’ as Petitioner before the ‘Adjudicating Authority admittedly that the delay of 91 4 days and the ‘Liquidator’ had rightly rejected the said ‘Application’. Also that it transpires that the ‘Liquidation’ process was completed and the entire assets also got disposed of and the fact of the matter is that the same was received and distributed among the ‘Financial Creditors’ and nothing was available to the ‘Operational Creditor’.
Viewed in that perspective and this ‘Tribunal’ keeping in mind of an important fact that after the completion of the process, the IA/IBC/1393/CHE/2022 in CP/1087/IB/2018 filed by the ‘Petitioner’/‘Appellant’ before the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ is perse and maintainable in the ‘eye of law’ and viewed in that perspective, the same was not entertained by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ from rightly so this ‘Tribunal’ is in complete agreement viewed arrived at by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ in dismissing the I.A.(IBC)/1393/CHE/2022 in CP/1087/IB/2018. Consequently, the instant Appeal is ‘devoid of merits’.
In fine, the Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.80 of 2023 is dismissed. No costs. Connected I.A. No. 290 of 2023 is closed.