9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority are not satisfying, as it has not gone into all the aspect of the matter much less the auditor report produced by the Appellant in its right perspective, it is opined that these matters deserve to be reheard by the Adjudicating Authority and to record specific findings on specific issues having been raised by the Appellant and defended by the Respondent. The matters are remanded back to the Tribunal to decide it again after taking into consideration each and every prayer made by the Appellant in these applications. - Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial) And Dr. Alok Srivastava Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Adv. Ashish Rana, Adv. Anurag Kr. Singh, Adv. Gaurav Raj, Adv. Nilesh Mudgil. For the Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as assigned. The said application was admitted on 03.01.2020 because the Respondent Company filed an additional affidavit admitting the total amount as claimed in the petition. Although in the order of admission it is mentioned that Mr. Naresh Sheth, who was proposed by the Applicant as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), was appointed but during the course of hearing we have been told that his actual name is Naren Sheth, in so far as first appeal is concerned. 3. In the second appeal, four Financial Creditors, namely, Clematis Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., Alpha (India) Properties Limited, Glean Trading Pvt. Ltd. and Kanha Textile Pvt. Ltd. filed an application under Section 7 of the Code against Actif Corporation Limited (Corporate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... null and void and therefore all the decisions taken therein should be held null and void. (e) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Application, this Tribunal may direct that no CoC meeting be conducted pending final disposal of the present Application. 6. The Adjudicating Authority consolidated both the applications and disposed them of by the common impugned order dated 05.10.2021 but for the sake of convenience it dealt with the facts of I.A. No. 296 of 2020. 7. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the present two appeals have been filed before this Court in which an interim order dated 14.12.2021 was passed which read as under:- 14.12.2021: Issue Notice. Notice is accepted by Learned Counsel appearing for the Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 296 of 2020 is concerned. 10. Since we are not satisfied with the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority as it has not gone into all the aspect of the matter much less the auditor report produced by the Appellant in its right perspective, we are of the considered opinion that these matters deserve to be reheard by the Adjudicating Authority and to record specific findings on specific issues having been raised by the Appellant and defended by the Respondent. We appreciate the stand taken by the Respondent who has not raised any objection in regard to remand back of these cases to the Adjudicating Authority after setting aside the impugned order. However, it is submitted that all the issues may be kept open and no finding may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
