AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Appellant is aggrieved by an impugned order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench) in TA(IBC)- 59(PB)/2023 whereby his petition was transferred from Court-2, Mumbai Bench of the NCLT to Court-5, Mumbai Bench of the NCLT.
In similar Appeal filed by Sumer Buildcorp Pvt. Ltd. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 622 of 2024], the following order was passed:
“..... We have considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the record. From the facts as noticed in para – 3 by the Adjudicating Authority, it is clear that the Appellant and other two Corporate Debtors against whom Section 7 Applications have been filed, one was admitted and other were not admitted belonging to same project. It is true that Application under Section 7 filed in Court No.5 has been admitted and the present Applications have not been admitted which have been transferred. Apprehension of the Appellant is that in view of the transfer made by the learned President referring to admitted application, the Adjudicating Authority may be influenced by the observations made in the Order and the prejudice may be caused while considering the Applications for admission. It is submitted that Respondent No.1 cannot be held to be stakeholders in the Petition where they are neither party nor they are stakeholders. There can be no dispute that the Company Petition which has been transferred, the Respondents were not party. However, the Respondents claim that they are home buyers of the same project which is being developed by all the three Companies. The power given to the President under Rule 16(d) is a wide power which can be exercised when circumstances so warrant. The President has noticed the fact that all the three companies relate to same project which are registered with the RERA, Maharashtra. In so far as apprehension of the Appellant that Section 7 Application which has been transferred to Court 5 may be influenced by observation made in the Order, we make it clear that observations made by the President were only for the purpose of transferring the Application and cannot be treated as observation on the merits of the Application which has been filed against the Appellant under Section 7; we believe that the application be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in the transfer order or the fact that another Application is admitted and pending in court No.5.”
This Appeal also is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 622 of 2024. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.