The Chennai bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) observed that since the Resolution Plan has been fully implemented, the cause of action as agitated against the proceedings conducted under Sections 30 & 31 of I & B Code, does not survive any more to be adjudicated.
P. Jayagovind, the appellant, has sought condonation of 257 days of delay, which has resulted in refiling the appeal. The reason for the postponement, explaining the delay of 257 days, has been given in para 2 of the said application. Though the reasons offered do not sound satisfactory, the counsel for the appellant has argued convincingly that owing to the conduct of the previous counsel, who did not justify the appearance as a professional on behalf of the appellant in coordinating the issue of the refiling of the appeal, the delay has changed and the appeal could be filed due to the efforts taken by the present counsel, who has been inducted as counsel for the appellant subsequently.
Boost Your Business with SME IPO Funding Strategies – Enroll Now
Thus, based on the reason given in the delay condonation application in refiling the appeal, coupled with the fact that, since it has already been settled that the issue of refiling is exclusively between the appellant and the tribunal, the delay which has chanced in refiling the appeal would hereby stand condoned. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the appeal is being heard on merits at the admission stage.
In the instant company appeal, the appellant has questioned the propriety of the impugned order, rendered by the adjudicating authority on 22.02.2021, being a proceeding held under Sections 30 & 31 of I & B Code. The consequential effect of the order has been that the resolution professional was allowed to proceed with the plan and consequent to it, as it has been informed by the Counsel for the Resolution Professional (Respondent), that the plan had already been implemented on 30.07.2021, and that, owing to the fact of complete implementation of the plan and of the Resolution Professional having already been discharged of his responsibilities, nothing much survives in the absence of challenge being given to the order approving the Resolution Plan.
A two member bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain, Member (Technical) viewed that since the Resolution Plan has been fully implemented, the cause of action as agitated in the appeal against the proceedings conducted under Sections 30 & 31 of I & B Code, does not survive any more to be adjudicated.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
