9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause in that matter it would result in the reopening of the whole issue, particularly as there may be other similar persons who may jump onto the bandwagon. There are no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. - [JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN] MEMBER (JUDICIAL) [ARUN BAROKA] MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellant : Adv. Praful Jindal, For the Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand Karan Kohli, Adv. for RP ORDER PER: JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN (ORAL) This Appeal is directed against the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred as to the Adjudicating Authority ) by which an application bearing IA no. 1613/2022 filed by the Appellant (IDBI Bank Ltd.) under Section 60(5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A No. 511 of 2021, filed by the Appellant herein was dismissed, was not further challenged in appeal in terms of Section 61 of the Code before this Appellate Tribunal and thus attained finality. 4. In the meantime, the litigation, being pursued by the then Successful Resolution Applicant (M/s.Aggarsain Spinners Ltd.), reached the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7015-7016 of 2022 and was decided on 09.12.2022. these appeals were filed against the order passed by this Tribunal dated 14.09.2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 637 and 638 of 2022 and Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 635 and 636 of 2022 which were dismissed. The Hon ble Supreme Court has passed the following orders on 09.12.2022: 12 In this view of the matter, and sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declared to be delayed and rejected by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 24.05.2022, the Appellant cannot pursue the same claim once again in this litigation as it is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. RPS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Mukul Kumar Anr in Civil Appeal No. 5590 of 2021 decided on 11.09.2023. 8. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 9. Since, the facts are borne out from the record, therefore these are not much in dispute and the only issue for our consideration is the request made by the Appellant which has been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground of delay. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are now guided b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose parameters. The delay on the part of the appellant is of 287 days. The appellant is a commercial entity. That they were litigating against the Corporate Debtor is an undoubted fact. We believe that the appellant ought to have been vigilant enough in the aforesaid circumstances to find out whether the Corporate Debtor was undergoing CIRP. The appellant has been deficient on this aspect. The result, of course, is that the appellant to an extent has been left high and dry. 20. Section 15 of the IBC and Regulation 6 of the IBBI Regulations mandate a public announcement of the CIRP through newspapers. This would constitute deemed knowledge on the appellant. In any case, their plea of not being aware of newspaper pronouncements is not one whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
