AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.08.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench, by which order the Adjudicating Authority has directed for liquidation and has appointed Resolution Professional to act as Liquidator after receiving his consent.
The Appellant, who as per the submission of the Counsel for the Appellant, has 2% voting share in the Committee of Creditors (CoC) is partly aggrieved by the order insofar as the same Resolution Professional has been appointed as a Liquidator. Learned Counsel submits that he has filed certain objections before the Adjudicating Authority which have not been adverted to.
We have considered the submission of the Counsel for the Appellant and we have also heard Counsel for the Liquidator who submits that the majority of Financial Creditors have no objection regarding appointment of the Resolution Professional as Liquidator. It is submitted that the Appellant, who has voting share in the CoC only 2%, due to some ulterior reason is opposing the appointment of the Liquidator.
We have considered the submission of the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In the order, which has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority, no submission has been noticed regarding any objection by any one with regard to appointment of the Liquidator. The Appellant's submission is that he has filed his objection with regard to Resolution Professional and he referred to Affidavit filed on behalf of the Appellant dated 22.03.2021. We are of the view that at the instance of the Appellant, who according to the Counsel for the Appellant has only 2% voting share and when there is no objection by majority of Financial Creditors regarding the appointment of Liquidator, no objection can be entertained against the appointment of Liquidator, we see no reason to entertain this Appeal challenging the impugned order.
With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.
Shri Rishav Banerjee, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that he should be given leave to re-agitate the matter. We are of the view that no such leave can be granted to further delay the matter. The prayer is rejected.