Power Mech Projects Ltd. vs Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan & Ors.

According to the ‘Petitioner’/‘Appellant’ in IA No.737/2023 there has occasioned a delay of 14 days in preferring the instant ‘Appeal’ and the date of ‘Impugned Order’ was on 20.03.2023 passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ in IA No.1578(CHE)/2022 in CP(IB)/757/2019 and the reason ascribed for the delay of 14 days in question on behalf of the ‘Petitioner’/‘Appellant’ is that the ‘Appellant’s Manager’ - Operations and Maintenance, was based out of Hyderabad and the Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellant’ was stationed in Calcutta and for transferring the relevant documents to be filed along with the instant Appeal, it took some time, for the ‘Petitioner’/‘Appellant’s Counsel to finalise the documents in question. As such, the delay that has occasioned for 14 days, is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the aforesaid reason.

On behalf of the 1^st Respondent/‘Resolution Professional’ Mr. T. Ravichandran Learned Counsel appears and there is no counter filed on behalf of the 1^st Respondent to the I.A.No.737/2023.

This ‘Tribunal’ on being subjectively satisfied as to the reasons mentioned at paragraph 5 of the I.A. No.737/2023 in CA (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.227 of 2023 by adopting a lenient, liberal and meaningful approach, and also by extending its ‘judicial arm of generosity’ condones the delay of 14 days, in furtherance of substantial cause of justice, but without costs.

The ‘Appellant’ has preferred the instant Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins)No.227 of 2023 as an ‘aggrieved person’ in respect of the ‘Impugned Order’ dated 20.03.2023 passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/ ‘National Company Law Tribunal’, Chennai Bench in IA No.1578(CHE)/2022 in CP(IBA)/757/2019 whereby and whereunder the ‘Application’ was ultimately ‘closed with’ Liberty to agitate the same before the ‘Appropriate Forum’.

Earlier, the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/‘National Company Law Tribunal, Special Bench Court I, Chennai, while passing the ‘Impugned Order’ in IA No.1578(CHE)/2022 in CP(IBA)/757/2019 filed by the ‘Appellant’/‘Petitioner’ had among other things observed that:

and further proceeded to make an observation that ‘CIRP’ Expenses need to be approved etc. and that the ‘Appellant’/‘Applicant’ cannot have liberty to file claim and also claim the same amount as ‘CIRP’ cost and dispose of the said Application, by granting liberty, to agitate the ‘issue’ before the ‘appropriate Forum’.

The Learned Senior Counsel for the ‘Appellant’ points out that the ‘Impugned Order’ is an illegal one and made a reference to the averments made by the ‘Appellant’ in ‘Appeal’ [vide Page 22 of the Appeal paper Books] that an application being C.P. No. IBA/757/2019 in IBC under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’) read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Application to the ‘Adjudicating Authority’) was filed by the ‘State Bank of India’ against the ‘Corporate Debtor’ to initiate ‘CIRP’ and the said application came to be admitted on 04.02.2022 and the ‘CIRP’ was initiated against the ‘Corporate Debtor’ by appointing Mr. Radhakrishnan Dharamrajan the 1^st Respondent as ‘Interim Resolution Professional’ (IRP).

The Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellant’ adverts to the fact that the following amount became payable from the ‘Corporate Debtor’ which is mentioned as hereunder:

and submits that the ‘Impugned Order’ granting liberty to agitate the same before the ‘Appropriate Forum’ cannot be countenanced in the ‘Eye of Law’.

At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the 1^st Respondent/ ‘Resolution Professional’ points out that a ‘CIRP’ expenses required to be approved and that the ‘Appellant’/‘Petitioner’ had already made claim and therefore cannot once again claim the very same sum in respect of ‘CIRP’ cost. As such, it is projected on the side of the 1^st Respondent/‘Resolution Professional’ that the ‘Impugned Order’ passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ in IA No.1578(CHE)2022 in C.P. IBA/757 of 2019 is a fair, just, valid one and at this stage of Appeal, it cannot be interfered with by this ‘Tribunal’ in the interest of justice.

This ‘Tribunal’ has ‘Heard’ the Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellant’ and the Learned Counsel for the 1^st Respondent/‘Resolution Professional’ and noticed their contentions.

Be that as it may, this ‘Tribunal’, on a careful consideration and respective contentions advanced on either side and also taking note of the fact that the claim of the ‘Appellant’/‘Petitioner’ was admitted and it is for the ‘Committee of Creditors’ to take a final call in the subject matter in issue, at this stage, ‘simpliciter’ is not inclined to entertain the ‘Appeal’. In reality, this ‘Tribunal’ is in complete agreement with the view arrived at by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ in the ‘Impugned Order’ in IA No.1578(CHE)/2022 in CP(IB)/757/2019 that the said ‘Application’ was closed with ‘liberty to agitate before the appropriate Forum’.

Looking at from the above perspective, the instant ‘Appeal’ CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 227 of 2023 sans merits and it fails.

In fine, the instant Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.227 of 2023 is dismissed. No costs. Connected IA No.738/2023 is closed.