Sansar Investment & Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. vs Atlantic Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. & Anr.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant in the instant Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.23/2020 challenges the Judicial propriety of the Impugned Order dated 27.11.2019, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in IA No.283/2019 in CP(IB) No.497/7/HDB/2018, as a consequence of which the Resolution Professional has rejected the claim of the Applicants, in its entirety.

When the Appeal after the exchange of the pleading was taken up yesterday, it was pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent, that during the period of pendency of the Appeal, the order of liquidation had already been passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority on 19.02.2020. Thus, in fact the Respondent Counsel contended, that owing to the passing of the order of liquidation, the instant appeal for all practical purposes has been rendered infructuous until or unless the challenge is given by the Appellant to the order of 19.02.2020 appointing the liquidator. The matter was debated upon yesterday and was carried forward today for arguments. While opening the arguments the Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that he would be rather opt, to prefer an Appeal under section 42 of I & B Code, thereby putting a challenge to the order of 19.02.2020 by approaching before the National Company Law Tribunal. But the only liberty which he attempts to seek from this Tribunal is with regard to the aspect of limitation which is self-contained under section 42 of I & B Code, which obviously will be dealt by the NCLT, in consonance of the provisions contained under section 238. Subject to the above liberty of preferring an Appeal under section 42 of I & B Code, the Company Appeal would stand dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant in Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.342/2020, challenges the Judicial propriety of the Impugned Order dated 01.01.2020, as it has been passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in IA No.896/2019 in CP(IB) No.497/7/HDB/2018, as a consequence of which the Resolution Professional has rejected the claim of the Applicants, in its entirety.

When the Appeal after the exchange of the pleading was taken up yesterday, it was pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent, that during the period of pendency of the Appeal, the order of liquidation had already been passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority on 19.02.2020. Thus, in fact the Respondent Counsel contended that owing to passing of an order of liquidation the instant appeal for all practical purposes has been rendered infructuous, until and unless the challenge is given to the order of 19.02.2020. The matter was debated upon yesterday and was carried forward for today. While opening the arguments the Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that he would be rather opt, to prefer an Appeal under section 42 of I & B Code, putting a challenge to the order of 19.02.2020 by approaching before the National Company Law Tribunal. But the only liberty which he attempts to seek is with regard to the aspect of limitation which is self-contained under section 42 of I & B Code which obviously will be dealt by the NCLT, in consonance of the provisions contained under section 238. Subject to the above liberty of preferring an Appeal under section 42 of I & B Code the Company Appeal would stand dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.