9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant in the above main appeal is that there cannot be two CIRPs simultaneously going on against the same debtor. The said contention is legally well-founded. But today, both CIRPs are on hold. This is despite the fact that the order passed in favour of the proposed intervenor in his own application under Section 7 IBC, by the NCLAT has attained finality and there is no impediment for the CIPR initiated by the proposed intervenor to proceed further - It is understandable that if the CIRP initiated by the respondent in the above civil appeal is on track. If it is not on track, at least the other CIPR should be allowed to proceed. The Corporate Debtor cannot be allowed to have benefit of the best of both the worlds. Therefore the interven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent in the main Civil Appeal, filed a petition in CP(IB) NO.804/2019 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short IBC ) against the appellant in the main appeal. The NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal) dismissed the application. But NCLAT (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal) allowed the application, forcing the corporate debtor to come up with the above main appeal being C.A. No.5170/2022. In the above appeal, C.A. No.5170/2022, this Court passed an order on 26.09.2022 directing the issue of notice and also staying further proceedings in C.P.(IB) No.804/2019. The appeal is yet to be heard finally. In the meantime, another financial creditor of the appellant in the main Civil Appeal has come up with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed intervenor is put on hold by the NCLT. Therefore the intervenor is caught in the middle and hence he seeks appropriate directions. The main contention of the corporate debtor who is the appellant in the above main appeal is that there cannot be two CIRPs simultaneously going on against the same debtor. The said contention is legally well-founded. But today, both CIRPs are on hold. This is despite the fact that the order passed in favour of the proposed intervenor in his own application under Section 7 IBC, by the NCLAT has attained finality and there is no impediment for the CIPR initiated by the proposed intervenor to proceed further. It is understandable that if the CIRP initiated by the respondent in the above civil appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
