2022 (4) TMI 244 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking expunging of name from the arrays of Respondents - HELD THAT - Further, from perusal of the record, it appears that an application was filed by the Appellant No. 1 bearing I.A. No. 2884 of 2021, wherein, a prayer was made on behalf of Appellant No. 1 that during pendency of this Appeal, Respondent No. 6- Mr. Sushil Kumar Gupta passed away on 29.10.2021. So, the name may be expunged from the arrays of Respondents. Respondent No. 7 is subsidiary company of Respondent No. 4 - Nobody appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 8. Judgement Reserved .

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Relationship between the appellants and respondent no. 5.
2. Request for maintaining status quo and remitting the matter to NCLT.
3. Application for expunging the name of deceased respondent.
4. Status of respondent no. 7 being a subsidiary company.
5. Non-appearance of respondent no. 8.

Analysis:

1. The first issue in this case pertains to the relationship between the appellants and respondent no. 5. The appellants, represented by Mr. Sandeep Gupta & Ms. Vinita Gupta, asserted that they are not related to respondent no. 5, denying any familial connection. This assertion was a crucial point raised during the proceedings.

2. The second issue revolves around the request made by the counsel for respondent no. 1, 2, & 3 to maintain the status quo and to remit the matter to the NCLT for a thorough hearing and decision on the merits. This request indicates a willingness to have the case reviewed and decided by the appropriate authority.

3. Another significant aspect of the judgment concerns an application filed by appellant no. 1 seeking the expunging of the name of a deceased respondent, Mr. Sushil Kumar Gupta, from the list of respondents. This application highlights the procedural steps taken to address changes in the parties involved in the case.

4. The status of respondent no. 7 as a subsidiary company of respondent no. 4 is also noted in the judgment. This relationship between the two respondents may have implications for the case, depending on the nature of their connection and involvement in the matter under consideration.

5. Lastly, the non-appearance of respondent no. 8 during the proceedings is a notable factor in the judgment. The absence of this respondent could have implications for the case, potentially affecting the arguments presented and the overall outcome of the legal proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses multiple issues related to the parties involved, procedural requests, and the status of various respondents. The decision to reserve judgment indicates that further deliberation and analysis are required before a final ruling can be made on the matters presented before the Appellate Tribunal.