AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
08.09.2022: This order shall dispose of a bunch of three appeals i.e. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 397 of 2020, CA (AT) (Ins) No. 398 of 2020 and CA (AT) (Ins) No. 399 of 2020 as the issue involved is common, however, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CA (AT) (Ins) No. 398 of 2020.
This appeal has been filed at the instance of Skyville-Residents Welfare Association to challenge the order dated 11.02.2020 by which their application seeking consolidation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (in short 'CIRP') initiated in CP No. 1038 of 2018 vide order dated 27.11.2018 in the matter of Golden Glow Estates Pvt. Ltd., CIRP initiated in CP No. 1083 of 2018 vide order dated 05.12.2018 in the matter of Adel Landmarks Limited, CIRP initiated in CP No. 1040 of 2018 vide order dated 05.12.2018 in the matter of Rational Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and CIRP initiated in CP No. 1039 of 2018 vide order dated 27.11.2018 in the matter of Digamber Buildcon Pvt. Ltd has been rejected.
Counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention to the relief clause of this Appeal and has submitted that the Appellant has prayed for various reliefs but she has referred in particular to reliefs, namely, “21(a). Pass an order thereby clarifying that the directions issued in Para 43 of the Judgment passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 377 of 2019 titled as ‘Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. Vs. Sachet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. apply to all the other projects being developed under the umbrella of Adel Landmarks Limited (R2) with various land and license holding subsidiaries under a common resolution professional; (b) Pass an order thereby directing the consolidation of the ongoing CIRP of the land and license owning subsidiary companies Respondent No. 1,3 and 4, initiated under C.P. (IB) No. 1038(PB)/2018 titled as IL & FS Financial Services Limited Vs. Golden Glow Estates pvt. Ltd., CP (IB) No. 1039(PB)/2018 titled as ECL Finance Limited Vs. Digamber Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., CP (IB) No. 1040(PB) /2018 titled as Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Ors. Vs. Rational Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. with the ongoing CIRP of the Developer Company i.e. Adel Landmarks Limited, initiated under C.P. (IB) No. 1083(PB)/2018 titled as Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Vs. Adel Landmarks Limited under a common resolution professional; (c) In case prayer (b) is rejected, pass an order thereby directing the consolidation of the ongoing CIRP of the land and license owning subsidiary companies Respondent No. 1,3,4 initiated under C.P. (IB) No. 1038(PB)/2018 titled as IL & FS Financial Services Limited Vs. Golden Glow Estates Pvt. Ltd., CP (IB) No. 1039(PB)/2018 titled as ECL Finance Limited Vs. Digamber Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., CP (IB) No. 1040(PB)/2018 titled as Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Ors. Vs. Rational Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. so that the project Skyville is developed in one go.
It is submitted that the reliefs sought in Para 21(a) and (b) are pertaining to the consolidation of all the aforesaid CIRPs whereas prayer made in clause 21(c) is regarding consolidation of land owning companies i.e. Golden Glow Estates Pvt. Ltd., Rational Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and Digamber Buildcon Pvt. Ltd..
It is further submitted that she has instruction to not to press the reliefs sought in Para 21(a) and (b) in this appeal and in so far as the relief 21(c) is concerned, the Appellant has already filed a separate application bearing no. CA No. 311 of 2021 which is pending adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, New Delhi). As per the understanding of the Appellant, CA No. 311 of 2021 is pending adjudication on account of pendency of this Appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant has also submitted that since the Appellant is not pressing any prayers in this appeal except for the relief 21(c) for which a separate application has already been filed, therefore, this appeal may be dismissed as not pressed. However, at the same time, she has requested that direction may be issued to the Adjudicating Authority, seized of CA No. 311 of 2021, to decide the same expeditiously.
Counsel for Respondents have not raised any objection in this regard much less about the dismissal of the appeal as not being pressed and also regarding the prayers of the Appellant for issuing a direction to the Adjudicating Authority, seized of CA No. 311 of 2021, to decide the same expeditiously. It is submitted by them that the application may be decided after hearing them in accordance with law.
Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed as not pressed except for prayer of Para 21(c) for which separate application is pending. The Adjudicating Authority, seized of the said application, is directed to decide the same as early as possible but preferably within period of one month from the date fixed on its in own merits.