P. Jayagovind vs Bijoy Prabhakaran Pulipra & Ors.

This Company Appeal is listed for orders on pending Interlocutory Applications. As far as the application for Leave to Appeal, being IA No.666/2023, no orders are required to be passed on the same for the reason being that the Principal Bench of NCLAT has already clarified the issue that, any person aggrieved against the order can prefer an appeal under Section 61 of I & B Code, as the scope under Section 61, is wide enough for an appeal to be preferred by anyone who is affected by the order.

Another IA, which is pending consideration is IA No.665/2023, where the Appellant has sought a condonation of 257 days of delay which has chanced in refiling the appeal. The reason for the delay explaining the delay of 257 days, has been given in para 2 of the said application. Though the reasons offered do not sound to be satisfactory, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, has argued convincingly that owing to the conduct of the previous counsel, who did not justify the appearance as a professional on behalf of the Appellant in coordinating the issue of refiling of the appeal, the delay has chanced and the appeal could be filed due to the efforts taken by the present counsel who has been inducted as counsel for the Appellant subsequently.

Thus, based on the reason given in the Delay Condonation Application in refiling the Appeal, coupled with the fact that, since it has already been settled that, the issue of refiling is exclusively between the Appellant and the Tribunal, the delay which has chanced in refiling the appeal would hereby stand condoned. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is being heard on merits at the admission stage.

In the instant Company Appeal, the Appellant has questioned the propriety of the Impugned Order, rendered by the Learned Adjudicating Authority on 22.02.2021, in IA(IBC)/13/KOB/2021 in TIBA/11/KOB/2019, being a proceeding held under the Sections 30 & 31 of I & B Code. The consequential effect of the Order has been that the Resolution Professional was allowed to proceed with the plan and consequent to it, as it has been informed by the Learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional (Respondent), that the plan had already been implemented on 30.07.2021, and that, owing to the fact of complete implementation of the plan and of the Resolution Professional having already been discharged of his responsibilities, nothing much survives on merits in this appeal to be decided, in the absence of challenge being given to the order approving the Resolution Plan. Owing to the above, since the Resolution Plan has been fully implemented, the cause of action as agitated in the instant appeal against the proceedings conducted under Sections 30 & 31 of I & B Code, does not survive any more to be adjudicated. Hence, the appeal would be laid to rest, having rendered infructuous, with the afflux of time.