Tribunals and CommissionsFull Bench(2024) 10 NCLAT CK 1187

Dr. Hema Joshi & Anr. vs Shri Bhupendra Singh Narayan Singh Rajput (RP of Alps Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) & Ors.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 18 October 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson · Barun Mitra, Member (T) · Arun Baroka, Member (T)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1885 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6804 of 2024

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

9 paragraphs · 367 words

18.10.2024: Heard Counsel for the Appellant.

2.

This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Ahmedabad, Division Bench, Court-1 by which IA No.1271(AHM) 2024 filed by the Appellant for impleadment of State of Uttarakhand has been rejected.

3.

Counsel for the Appellant submits that in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.72 of 2023 which was filed by the SRA, the liberty was granted by this Tribunal to the intervenors who were the Appellants to file an application before the Adjudicating Authority. It is submitted that the application has been filed on account of liberty granted by this Tribunal.

4.

In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.72 of 2023, this Tribunal directed in paragraphs 8, 9 & 10 as follows:-

“8. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that any of the issues raised by the Intervenor cannot be examined in this Appeal, however, liberty is granted to the Intervenor to file an appropriate application before the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law.

9.

In view of the developments which have taken place in the Appeal and the facts that entire amount has been deposited and initially protection was granted by this Tribunal, it is submitted that no steps have been taken in the liquidation sofar except for inviting claims. We are of the view that the impugned order of liquidation dated 07.12.2022 deserves to be set aside and the Appellant may take steps for implementation of the Resolution Plan in accordance with law.

10.

The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.”

5.

The Resolution Plan with regard to Corporate Debtor stand approved and the liquidation order has been set aside. Appellants who claim to be legal heirs of the promoter has filed the application and Appellants’ case is that the lease of the land was not renewed. It is well settled proposition that the SRA takes the assets of the corporate debtor on “as is where is basis”, therefore, the issue of impleadment of the State of Uttarakhand at this stage has rightly been not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority.

6.

We do not find any error in the order. The Appeal is dismissed.