Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2022) 08 NCLAT CK 0024

Gajendra Investment Ltd. & Anr vs Jayesh N. Sanghrajka & Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 8 August 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson · Barun Mitra, Member (T)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 883 Of 2022

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

7 paragraphs · 355 words
1.

Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2&3 seek liberty to file their Vakalatnama. They may do so within three days.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. This Appeal has been filed against order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench in I.A. No. 930 of 2021. The Application was filed by the Resolution Professional seeking direction against the Respondent to make their contribution towards the CIRP Costs. The Adjudicating Authority has allowed the said Application.

2.

Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the order contended that under the Resolution Plan which has been approved by the CoC, the amount pertaining to the CIRP Cost was to be funded by the Resolution Applicant. Learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Resolution Applicant has in fact made available certain amount which was utilized for paying CIRP cost.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that under the Resolution Plan liability to pay CIRP cost is of Resolution Applicant subsequent to the approval of Resolution Plan but till the Resolution Plan is approved the Members of the CoC will bear the CIRP Cost. It is submitted that one CoC member, IIFL, has made the contribution available, however, other CoC members have not made their contribution.

4.

It is further submitted that application for approval of Resolution Plan is pending consideration before the Adjudicating Authority since 24.09.2021 and has not yet been disposed of.

5.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.

We see no reason to entertain this Appeal at this stage. The contribution which has to be made by the Appellant towards the CIRP cost shall be subject to any further order passed by the Adjudicating Authority while approving the Resolution Plan. Looking to the fact that the application for approval of Resolution Plan is pending from September, 2021, we request the Adjudicating Authority to consider the application for approval of Resolution Plan and take appropriate decision at an early date. Appeal is disposed of with these observations.