9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Liquidation in the Liquidation Estate - Aggrieved Person under Section 61 of the I B Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The Aggrieved Person in the context of the terminology used under Section 61 (1), would be `a person who has not been conscious of an Impugned Order that prejudices his material right and such person could still invoke an Appellate Jurisdiction by seeking the leave of the Court. However, the interpretation of the word `Aggrieved Person , could not be stretched to an extent, to accommodate a person who was conscious of his rights and has intervened in the proceedings, but whose intervention was ultimately rejected, because, for all practical purposes, such a person cannot be treated as to be a party to the proceedings based on which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Resely 7 Ors. V. Union Bank of India was instituted before this Tribunal, putting a challenge to the Impugned Judgment of the NCLT, Kochi Bench on 21.01.2022 in MA / 76 / KOB / 2020 in IBA / 240 / KOB / 2019 by which the Respondent No. 3 / Liquidator was allowed to include certain lands owned by the Appellants and given on Lease to the Corporate Debtor under Liquidation in the `Liquidation Estate . 2. The Company Appeal as above was accompanied by a Condone Delay Application being IA No. 990 / 2022. While allowing IA No. 990 / 2022, this Tribunal rejected the Company Appeal on 24.11.2022, on grounds of being filed beyond the `prescribed time limit , as granted by the Hon ble High Court of Kerala. 3. Subsequently, the Appellants had gone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the Impugned Order dated 21.01.2022 is that, the learned Tribunal, had heard the Appellants during the proceedings of MA / 76 / KOB / 2020 and rejected the respective Interlocutory Applications / Intervention Petitions which they have preferred for being permitted to be heard and for grant of other reliefs, before the NCLT. 7. The argument which the Learned Counsel for the Appellant makes to sustain this Appeal is that, since he was heard by the Tribunal, though not being a party to the proceedings, he consequentially gets a right to prefer an Appeal on an Aggrieved Person in light of the provisions contained under Section 61 of the I B Code, 2016, concerning an Aggrieved Person . 8. We are of the view that the Aggrieved Person in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by them to permit them to intervene. However, merely because of the fact that they were heard or they were described as Additional Respondents, before the NCLT, they will not get the status of being a party to the proceedings which will enable them to file an Appeal. Further, they would not be entitled to be treated as to be an Aggrieved Person , because, they were conscious of the proceedings, being held, before the NCLT. 11. What is more agonising for us is that, the Appellants have preferred this Appeal, before this Tribunal on 14.07.2022 and during the course of the proceedings of the Appeal, before this Tribunal, they have not disclosed the fact that after preferring of an Appeal on 14.07.2022, they have simultaneously filed a Writ Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
