In the matter of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II, Rourkela Employees' Provident Fund Organization Vs. Sumit Binani and Anr. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 51 of 2021

Learned Counsel for Appellant states that there is correspondence available to show that the Appellant had moved the Liquidator with claims of the provident fund but the Liquidator said that the Resolution Plan has been restored and so he is no more the Liquidator. The Successful Resolution Applicant is the Respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that because of this reason, the Appellant could not challenge the earlier Resolution Plan when it was passed due to intervening developments.

Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against Impugned Order dated 17th July, 2018 (Annexure-A Page 45) vide which the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench) had approved the Resolution Plan in the matter of M/s. Adhunik Metaliks Ltd.-Corporate Debtor.

3. It is stated that after this Order dated 17th July, 2018 was passed the Adjudicating Authority had passed orders dated 09th July, 2019 (Annexure-C Page 84) and by that order the Adjudicating Authority held that Resolution Plan has failed and Liquidation Order was passed. It is stated that thereafter there was Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 724 of 2019 filed (Annexure-B Page 67) and by Order dated 3rd March, 2020 passed by this Tribunal, the Resolution Plan dated 17.07.2018 was restored. Learned Counsel for Appellant states that there is correspondence available to show that the Appellant had moved the Liquidator with claims of the provident fund but the Liquidator said that the Resolution Plan has been restored and so he is no more the Liquidator. The Successful Resolution Applicant is the Respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that because of this reason, the Appellant could not challenge the earlier Resolution Plan when it was passed due to intervening developments.

4. Having gone through the material on record, it is apparent that the Impugned Order dated 17.07.2018 was passed and thereafter it came to set aside after almost one year on 09th July, 2019. If the Appellant had grievances with regard to Resolution Plan approved, the Appellant never filed Appeal during that time. As such, for such reasons, the intervening incidents would not be relevant for consideration. As per Section 61 (2), the Period of Appeal is 30 days and this Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone only 15 days. Considering this, the Appeal is time-barred.

The Appeal is dismissed as time-barred.

[Justice A.I.S. Cheema]

Member (Judicial)

[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra]

Member (Technical)

LEGAL REFERENCES

Similar Ripples

Questions

There is no question

In the matter of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II, Rourkela Employees' Provident Fund Organization Vs. Sumit Binani and Anr. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 51 of 2021

Write your Comment

Generic

Reportdata/2054.pdf

Would you like to edit this news ? Edit

Select Format

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Advanced

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Add tags

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

PUBLISH IT

Don't sell
PUBLISH IT
Publish privately
SAVE AS DRAFT

Dont't publish now

Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. 
2. This Appeal has been filed against Impugned Order dated 17th July, 2018
(Annexure-A Page 45) vide which the Adjudicating Authority (National Company
Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench) had approved the Resolution Plan in the matter
of M/s. Adhunik Metaliks Ltd.-Corporate Debtor. 
3. It is stated that after this Order dated 17th July, 2018 was passed the
Adjudicating Authority had passed orders dated 09th July, 2019 (Annexure-C
Page 84) and by that order the Adjudicating Authority held that Resolution Plan has failed and Liquidation Order was passed. It is stated that thereafter there was Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 724 of 2019 filed (Annexure-B Page 67) and by Order dated 3rd March, 2020 passed by this Tribunal, the Resolution Plan dated 17.07.2018 was restored. Learned Counsel for Appellant states that there is correspondence available to show that the Appellant had moved the Liquidator with claims of the provident fund but the Liquidator said that the Resolution Plan has been restored and so he is no more the Liquidator. The Successful Resolution Applicant is the Respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that because of this reason, the Appellant could not challenge the earlier Resolution Plan when it was passed due to intervening developments. 
4. Having gone through the material on record, it is apparent that the
Impugned Order dated 17.07.2018 was passed and thereafter it came to set aside after almost one year on 09th July, 2019. If the Appellant had grievances with regard to Resolution Plan approved, the Appellant never filed Appeal during that time. As such, for such reasons, the intervening incidents would not be relevant for consideration. As per Section 61 (2), the Period of Appeal is 30 days and this Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone only 15 days. Considering this, the Appeal is time-barred. 
The Appeal is dismissed as time-barred.
 
[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] 
Member (Judicial)

[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] 
Member (Technical)

Hi Thakurani,
I want to withdraw in my Thakurani wallet
Thanks,

Select the reason for validity check

I feel great..the news is still good.please give the reason too..thanks..

Why do you think the News as invalid?” Please mention the reason.

I appreciate your effort. May I request you to select one of the reasons from below.
I am marking this post and your reason to Thakurani Moderators. They will take appropriate action.
Thanks,

Write your reason

My Dear ,

Harassing

Spam

Ingenuine

Rotten

Alien

Plagiarism

Unformatted

In the matter of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II, Rourkela Employees' Provident Fund Organization Vs. Sumit Binani and Anr. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 51 of 2021