Tribunals and CommissionsFull Bench(2024) 03 NCLAT CK 0030

Rare Asset Reconstruction Ltd vs Avishek Gupta & Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 7 March 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson · Barun Mitra, Member (T) · Arun Baroka, Member (T)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 450 Of 2024 & I.A. No. 1551 Of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 262 words
1.

I.A. No.1551 of 2024: This is an application praying for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. Sufficient cause has been shown in the application for condonation of delay. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. No.1551 of 2024 stands disposed of.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. This Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 04.01.2024 by which I.A. No.1851 of 2023 filed by the Appellant has been rejected. The Appellant has earlier filed an application challenging declaration of the Appellant as related party; which application was rejected, against which an appeal was filed being Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1304 of 2023 which has been dismissed by this Tribunal by order dated 29.02.2024.

3.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Adjudicating Authority has also imposed penalty of Rs.1 Lakh in Para 122 of the judgment. It is submitted that the Appellant was agitating its cause and filed application for its right which was claimed by the Appellant and there was no occasion for the Adjudicating Authority to impose penalty on the Appellant.

4.

Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Application having held to be frivolous, hence, imposition of penalty was justified.

5.

In this Appeal, the Appellant has confined its prayer only to imposition of penalty. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that ends of justice be served in deleting the penalty of Rs.1 Lakh imposed on the Appellant. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.