AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
30.01.2025: Heard Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Raghenth Basant appearing for the Appellant and Learned Counsel Mr. Shaunak Mitra appearing on behalf of the RP.
This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 2279/KB/2024. Only direction which is sought to be impugned in the Appeal is, direction issued by the Adjudicating Authority in Paragraph 2 e, which is as follows:
“2. IA(I.B.C)/2279(KB)2024 e. For the time being, Resolution Professional is not permitted totake custody and control of the factory in question. The order is restricted to have an access to the said piece of land and factory premises.”
Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the Order submits that the premises were owned by the Appellant who had earlier granted a lease to Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 12 of 2025 2 of 3 an entity from which under the DRT sale the Corporate Debtor has obtained the leasehold rights which leasehold right has now come to an end, therefore, the RP has no right to even enter into the premises and the Adjudicating Authority has passed the Order without giving a opportunity to the Appellant to have its say.
Learned Counsel Mr. Mitra submits that on the land which was in the leasehold rights of the Corporate Debtor factory and plant was operational and for finding out what are the Assets of the Corporate Debtor, the RP has to look into the premises and visit the place. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has allowed Appellant to file Reply within two weeks although Order was passed on 25.11.2024 but no Reply has yet been filed and the matter has already been posted for 02.01.2025 and now it is posted for 11.02.2025.
In the facts of the present case, only direction which has been issued by the Adjudicating Authority is restricted to the access to the said piece of land and factory premises by the RP. We are of the view that no expectation can be taken to the said direction since unless the RP has access to the premises and the factory premises he cannot effectively prosecute his Application and the submission of the Appellant that even access be not allowed does not commend us.
The Appellant has already been given time to file the Reply. It is open for the Appellant to file its Reply and take all pleas including that Application does not deserves to be entertained.
We make it clear that at this stage, we are not expressing any opinion on the merits on the contention of the Parties which may be considered and decided by the Adjudicating Authority while deciding the Application finally. However, at this stage, we see no reason to interfere with the direction issued in Paragraph 2 e. The Appeal is dismissed with the above observations.