2020 (7) TMI 773 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal - decision taken by the liquidator is appealable or not - Section 42 of I B Code - HELD THAT - Admittedly the Liquidator had taken a decision. The decision taken by the liquidator is appealable under Section 42 of the Code. The petitioners in order to file appeal under Section 42 of the Code filed an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It has been submitted that the said delay condonation petition had been already allowed by the Tribunal. Now the petitioners have to file appeal as provided under Section 42 of the Code. Since there is provision for appeal and the petitioners had already decided to resort to the said provision by filing application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal it is not just and proper for this Court to pass any order exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India particularly when so many appeals in this connection are pending consideration by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of all the appeals including the appeals to be filed by the petitioners in this case in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible - Petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Setting aside the order for liquidation by the National Company Law Tribunal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Direction to the first respondent to consider the claims of workmen before proceeding with liquidation.
3. Appealability of the order under Section 61 of the Code.
4. Grievance of the petitioners regarding the decision of the Liquidator.
5. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 42 of the Code.
6. Exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. Pending appeals before the Tribunal related to the issue.
8. Direction to dispose of all appeals expeditiously and afford reasonable opportunity of hearing.
9. Restriction on disbursement to creditors until appeals are disposed of.

Analysis:

1. The Original Petition sought to set aside the order for liquidation by the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 33(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Additionally, a direction was requested to the first respondent to withhold liquidation until the claims of workmen were considered.

2. The Court noted that service was incomplete on all respondents but decided not to pass any order on merits, eliminating the need to serve notice on the unserved respondents.

3. The Court heard arguments from both the petitioners' and the first respondent's counsel.

4. The order in question, Ext.P7, was acknowledged as appealable under Section 61 of the Code. The petitioners expressed no grievance against Ext.P7 but contested the decision of the Liquidator concerning their claims. They requested a fresh decision after a proper hearing and document consideration.

5. The Liquidator had already made a decision, appealable under Section 42 of the Code. The petitioners sought to appeal by filing a delay condonation petition, which was approved by the Tribunal. The petitioners were directed to file the appeal under Section 42.

6. The Court declined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, considering the provision for appeal and pending appeals before the Tribunal on similar issues.

7. Given the pending appeals related to the case, the Tribunal was instructed to expedite the disposal of all appeals, including those to be filed by the petitioners, ensuring a fair hearing for all parties involved.

8. Until the appeals were resolved, no disbursement to creditors was permitted. However, the judgment did not hinder the Liquidator from selling the property in compliance with the law.

9. The Original Petition was disposed of accordingly, with the outlined directions and restrictions in place.

← Previous Next →