TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , JJ. For The Appellant : Ms Varsha Banerjee, Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr Kunal Godhwani, Advocates For The Respondents : Mr.Uddyam Mukherjee and Mr. Krishnayan Sen, Advocates And Mr.R.P. Agrawal with Mr. Suny Verma, Advocates JUDGMENT SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J . M/s. Ameya Laboratories Ltd. corporate applicant preferred an application under Section 10 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the I B Code ) for initiation of corporate insolvency process in respect of it. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad vide impugned order dated 21st August, 2017 passed in CP (IB)No. 50/10/HDB/2017 rejected the application under Section 10 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pradesh, Hyderabad in CP No. 33/2013. On consideration of relevant facts in the petition under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has already come to a conclusion that the appellant, corporate debtor, was unable to pay the debt and ordered to wind up the appellant company. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that against the order of winding up the appellant has preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court wherein the Hon ble High Court vide order dated 19th August, 2015 passed interim order of stay. The operative portion of the stay order is reproduced below: In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in RISHSABH AGRO INDUSTR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is remanded, the result would be that the appeal which had been disposed of by the said order of the Appellate Authority would be restored and it can be said to be pending before the Appellate Authority after the quashing of the order of the Appellate Authority. The same cannot be said with regard to an order staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority because in spite of the said order, the order of the Appellate Authority continues to exist in law and so long as it exists, it cannot be said that the appeal which has been disposed of by the said order has not been disposed of and is still pending. 7. It was further contended that Section 11(d) of I B Code bars the corporate applicant, in respect of whom order of li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the records as prescribed under Section 10 and the information as required to be submitted in Form 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 subject to ineligibility prescribed under Section 11. If all information are provided by an applicant as required under Section 10 and Form 6 and if the Corporate Applicant is otherwise not ineligible under Section 11, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to admit the application and cannot reject the application on any other ground. 23. Any fact unrelated or beyond the requirement under I B Code or Forms prescribed under Adjudicating Authority Rules (Form 6 in the present case) are not required to be stated or pleaded. Non-disclosure of any fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Recovery Tribunal or appeal pending before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal cannot proceed in view of the order of moratorium as may be passed. xxx 28. In a case where a winding up proceedings has already been initiated against a Corporate Debtor by the Hon ble High Court or Tribunal or liquidation order has been passed in respect of Corporate Debtor, no application under Section 10 can be filed by the Corporate Applicant in view of ineligibility under Section 11(d) of I B Code, as quoted below: 11. Persons not entitled to make application - The following persons shall not be entitled to make an application to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process under this Chapter, namely:- (a) a corporate debtor und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
