AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No. 4907 of 2023:- Sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay of two days in e-filing the appeal. Delay condoned.
Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench-II) by which I.A. No. 35 of 2022, 36 of 2022, 57 of 2022 filed by the ‘Assignee’ seeking impleadment in I.A. Nos. 4978 of 2021, 4981 of 2021 and 4995 of 2021 have been rejected.
Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has rejected the application. The ‘Assignee’ who were refused the impleadment has not come up in the appeal but it is the liquidator who has come up in the appeal.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in paragraph 24 of the Judgment Adjudicating Authority has recorded his conclusion that liquidator cannot assign the debt under Sections 43, 45, 50 & 66 of IBC, 2016 before the adjudication of Avoidance/PUFE of proceedings. He submits that the said observations are contrary to Regulation 37 (A). Regulation 37 (A) on which reliance is placed is as follows:
“37A. Assignment of not readily realisable assets.
(1) A liquidator may assign or transfer a not readily realisable asset through a transparent process, in consultation with the stakeholders' consultation committee in accordance with regulation 31A, for a consideration to any person, who is eligible to submit a resolution plan for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor.
Explanation -For the purposes of this sub-regulation, "not readily realisable asset" means any asset included in the liquidation estate which could not be sold through available options and includes contingent or disputed assets and assets underlying proceedings for preferential, undervalued, extortionate credit and fraudulent transactions referred to in sections 43 to 51 and section 66 of the Code].”
The issue which is sought to be raised by the appellant need not be entertained and decided in the appeal which has been filed by the Liquidator. However, we are of the view that question of law expressed by the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 24 (b) & (f) are left open and to be decided in an appropriate case.
With these observations, the appeal is dismissed.