9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chand Bothra, only claim of ₹ 4,12,95,002/- was allowed to his share. It is undisputed facts after the death of Mukhanchand Bothra his legal heirs, i.e. Appellants had been substituted in place of Late Mukhanchand Bothra. As per approved Resolution Plan ₹ 4,12,95,002/- comes to the shares of Late Mukhanchand Bothra. Therefore, all the appellants are entitled to one-third share, from the amount which was allotted in favour of Late Mukhanchand Bothra - the resolution professional has no right to again raise the issue of succession from the appellants at the time of distribution of amount. On perusal of entire record; it remains undisputed that the Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority and the names of legal heirs of late Mukanchand Bothra was already substituted by Order of the Adjudicating Authority, with the consent of the Resolution Professional. Therefore there was no occasion to demand succession certificate, Probate Order from the Appellants at the time of distribution of money as per approved Resolution Plan - It is thus clear that the Appellants are entitled to the share allotted to Late Mukanchand Bothra. No further proof of succession is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder on 26th September 2019. Applicant further alleged that the Resolution Professional submitted a Memo, dated 04th October 2019 before the Adjudicating Authority with all false information. After the transfer of the then Judicial Member to Delhi, the new bench of the NCLT/the Adjudicating Authority modified the earlier Order. In contrast, review or modification is not permissible under IBC. Therefore, the Appellant has challenged the Order of the Adjudicating Authority passed in M.A. No.927 of 2019 on 11th October 2019. 5. This Appeal has filed mainly on the ground by the Adjudicating Authority has no power to review its Order. The Adjudicating Authority cannot review the earlier Order or reopen the case unless it appears that there is an arithmetical error apparent in the previous Order. 6. During the pendency of the main Application challenging the rejection of the claim, the Respondent No.2, the Resolution Professional, had filed its Reply and pending that Mukanchand Bothra died. After that, an application for substitution of their names was filed by the Appellants, stating that they are the legal heirs of late Sri Mukanchand Bothra. Based on the substitution application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncial Creditor before the Resolution Professional. During the pendency of the petition Mukanchand Bothra expired and, Misc. Application No. 518/2018, was filed on behalf of Appellants as legal heirs of Late Mukanchand Bothra for substitution of their names, in place of Late Mukanchand Bothra. This Application was allowed by Order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 03rd May, 2019. 14. In the said Order, it is stated that Counsel for RP is present. Applicant No.3 is present, filed Application for bringing on record the legal heirs of Mr S. Mukanchand Bothra, who expired during the pendency of MA/518/2018. The Counsel for RP has no objection to the same. Therefore, the Application is allowed. The legal heirs of Mr. S. Mukanchand Bothra, viz., Applicants 2 to 4 are hereby brought on record as Applicants. The cause title of MA/518/2018 shall be amended by the Applicants. Accordingly, the Application stands disposed of. 15. On perusal of the above Order, it is clear that at the time of substitution of the names of the legal heirs of Late Mukanchand Bothra, counsel for the Resolution Professional has given his consent and has stated that RP has no objection to the same . 16. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02/- comes to the shares of Late Mukhanchand Bothra. Therefore, all the appellants are entitled to one-third share, from the amount which was allotted in favour of Late Mukhanchand Bothra. This resolution plan has become final, and the adjudicating Authority has substituted the names of the appellants as legal heirs of late Mukhanchand Bothra. Therefore, any demand for succession certificate, Probate order at this stage is without any basis. Since the approved resolution plan is binding on all the stakeholders. Therefore the resolution professional has no right to again raise the issue of succession from the appellants at the time of distribution of amount. 19. It is contended that the Appellants have not complied with the Order of the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the Order dated 11th September 2019 cannot be treated as recall, review or modification of earlier Order. It is further said that the adjudicating Authority has exercised its powers under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rule. 20. It is pertinent to mention that by the impugned Order the Adjudicating Authority has neither modified or reviewed its earlier Order. But the Order for publication of notice in the newspaper is wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 2nd July 2019 resolution plan was amended and revised Resolution Plan has been the approved by the CoC after that by the Adjudicating Authority. The approved Resolution Plan dated 27th August 2019 is not under challenge. Therefore this Appeal has become infructuous. Since the approved Resolution Plan is not challenged and has been implemented. Therefore, this Appeal deserves to be rejected as infructuous. 3. The Resolution Professional has filed this Appeal against the Order dated 02nd July, 2019 and the Appeal has been filed by the Resolution Professional on 13th August, 2019. Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 provides that any person aggrieved by the Order of NCLT may prefer and appeal within 30 days. Hence, under Section 61, limitation cannot be calculated from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the Order but is calculated from the date of passing of the Order. It is pertinent to note that no Application for Condonation of Delay was filed explaining the delay. However, Resolution Professional cannot be termed as an aggrieved person. This Appellate Tribunal in CA No.1018 of 2018 dated 01st October 2019 has dismissed the Appeal filed by Resolu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
