PT Joy Erstwhile Resolution Professional Of MIR Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

After hearing Mr. Avinash Krishnan Ravi, Ld. Counsel appearing for the ‘Appellant’, in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.230/2023, this ‘Tribunal’, is of the considered view that before ever the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘Tribunal’, making certain observations against the ‘Appellant’ / ‘Petitioner’, before it in the instant case, an opportunity should have been given to the ‘Appellant’ / ‘Petitioner’ to explain his instance as to the reason why not yet taken back the Application (which was referred to in paragraph 2 of the impugned order in I.A. No. 229/KOB/2023 in IBA/11/KOB/2020 passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘Tribunal’, Kochi Bench.

Be it noted, that once the ‘Committee of Creditors’ have approved the ‘Resolution Plan’ and later, when it got the green signal or seal of an Approval by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘Tribunal’, then, it is the end of the matter. But making some generalised remarks against the ‘Appellant’ / ‘Petitioner’ at paragraph 5 of the impugned order, inter alia to the effect that (the application failed to examine the financial position of the ‘Successful Resolution Applicant’ as provided under Section 32 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and made himself as cause for the failure to proceed with the ‘Resolution Plan’ approved by the ‘Committee of Creditors’, in the subjective opinion of this ‘Tribunal’ are not warranted (paragraph 5 of the impugned order) and in fact, the ‘Appellant’ / ‘Petitioner’ was not provided with an opportunity much less an adequate opportunity, to put forth his instance, when certain observations were made against the ‘Appellant’ / ‘Resolution Professional’ since without providing an opportunity to the ‘Appellant’ / ‘Petitioner’ will certainly be affecting his reputation and conduct which will be Jewel in a crown.

Viewed in that perspective, observations made in paragraph 5 of the impugned order in I.A. No. 229/KOB/2023 in IBA/11/KOB/2020 dated 21.06.2023 were ‘unwarranted’, ‘uncalled’ for and to secure the ends of justice were expunged and set aside and order to be expunged by this ‘Tribunal’ in the instant ‘Appeal’.

With the aforesaid observations, the instant Company Appeal (AT)(CH) (Ins) No. 230/2023 stands ‘disposed of’ I.A. No. 828/2023 (for impleadment) is closed. No costs. In other respects, the impugned order of the ‘‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘Tribunal’ is not displaced.

After hearing the arguments of Mr. Avinash Krishnan, Ld. Counsel appearing for the ‘Appellant’ in Company Appeal (AT)(CH) (Ins) No. 234/2023, this ‘Tribunal’ keeping in mind of the fact that paragraph 2 and 5 of the impugned order dated 21.06.2023 in I.A. No. 229/KOB/2023 in IBA/11/KOB/2020 were ordered to be expunged by this ‘Tribunal’ by passing necessary orders today in Company Appeal (AT)(CH) (Ins) No. 230/2023. This ‘Tribunal’, is of the resultant view that observations made by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘Tribunal’ in IBA/11/KOB/2020 dated 21.06.2023 passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘Tribunal’ to the following effect:

Viewed in that prospective, this Tribunal, is left with no option but to set aside and expunge those observations beginning at paragraph 9 as referred to supra and accordingly the instant Company Appeal (AT)(CH) (Ins) No. 234/2023 stands ‘disposed of’, I.A. No. 756/2023 (for Exemption) and I.A. No. 827/2023 (for Impleadment) are closed. No costs. In other respects, the impugned order of the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘Tribunal’ is not displaced.