9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 195 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyValidity of impugned order - CIRP expenses required to be approved and the Appellant/Petitioner had already made claim - Impugned Order granting liberty to agitate the same issue before the Appropriate Forum - HELD THAT - Taking note of the fact that the claim of the Appellant/Petitioner was admitted and it is for the Committee of Creditors to take a final call in the subject matter in issue, at this stage, simpliciter is not inclined to entertain the Appeal. In reality, this Tribunal is in complete agreement with the view arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned Order that the said application was closed with liberty to agitate before the appropriate Forum. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved: Condonation of Delay Application, Impugned Order Challenge
Condonation of Delay Application: The delay of 14 days in preferring the Appeal was explained by the Appellant due to logistical reasons involving the Appellant's Manager being based in Hyderabad and the Counsel in Calcutta, necessitating time for document transfer. The Tribunal, satisfied with the reasons presented, condoned the delay in a generous manner, emphasizing the importance of justice without imposing costs. Impugned Order Challenge: The Appellant challenged the Impugned Order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, which closed the Application with liberty to agitate before the appropriate forum. The Appellant contended that the order was illegal, referring to the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor and the outstanding amounts payable. The Respondent, representing the Resolution Professional, argued that the Impugned Order was fair and valid, as the Appellant had already made a claim for CIRP expenses. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, stating that the matter should be decided by the Committee of Creditors and declined to entertain the Appeal, finding it lacking in merit. In conclusion, the Appeal was dismissed as lacking merit, with no costs imposed, and the connected application was closed.
|
