9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate with Ms. Ekta Choudhary, Mr. Divyank Dutt Dwivedi and Ms. Aditi Sharma, Advocates for PNB. Mr. Harsh Kumar Arora and Mr. Rishi Singhal, Advocates for RP. Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Advocate ORDER ( Hybrid Mode ) Heard Counsel for the Appellant, Sh. Arvind Nayyar, Sr. Advocate appearing for Punjab National Bank and Leaned Counsel appearing for ex-Directors. 2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court - V), in I.A. 3151/2022 in C.P. (IB) No. 271/PB/2017, by which order Adjudicating Authority has issued certain directions and applications were directed to be listed on 11.03.2024. 3. The application I.A. 3151/2022 was filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, earlier RP was replaced and the new RP was appointed who had appeared before the Adjudicating Authority on 29.01.2024 whose statement was noted. It is submitted that in the application, PNB has been praying for direction for reconstitution of the CoC and the issue was very much alive. 8. Sh. Arvind Nayyar subsequently on 11.03.2024, order has been passed on I.A. 3151/2022, where Adjudicating Authority had directed issuance of Notice to all the Members of the CoC and asked them to file a Reply. 9. It is submitted that in view of the subsequent orders when the application is yet to be decided, this appeal need not be entertained. 10. Learned Counsel for the ex-Directors submits that the question of reconstitution of the CoC arises on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order being only interlocutory order and subsequently another order has been passed on 11.03.2024 all issues pertaining to the application are open and to be considered and decided by the Adjudicating Authority after hearing both the parties. 16. We are of the view that since the Adjudicating Authority in subsequent order makes it clear that the application may be decided afresh after hearing both the parties and considering the Reply, we see no reason to keep the appeal pending. We make it clear that all contention of both the parties are left open on all issues which the Adjudicating Authority may decide in accordance with law. 17. We have noted that in order dated 29.01.2024, the Adjudicating Authority had directed the RP to examine th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
