9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed by the 'Appellant' - 'Vijisan Jewels Pvt Ltd' under Section 61 of the 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016' (in short 'Code') against the order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench Court - III, in I.A/1081/2020, MA/4182/2019 M.A.3930/2019 and M.A 3273/2019 in CP(IB)-297(MB)/2018. 2. The Appellant has sought the following reliefs: a. To set aside the impugned order dated 05.02.2021, as stated above, passed by the Adjudicating Authority; b. To direct the 'Liquidator' to consider the offer of the appellant to buy out the factory premises and sale in its favour; c. To direct the Liquidator to obtain fresh valuation report of the Corporate Debtor; d. To dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se agreement was not renewed thereafter which is not in dispute. The Appellant has also submitted that all certificates & registrations including registered office as per Companies act, GST Registration, Factory licenses, PF, ESIC, pollution certificates and all other registration licenses cannot be changed in such short span of time and as such the livelihood of more than 100 workmen working with the Appellant at the factory premises will be at stake if the Appellant is forced to vacate the premises immediately in terms of the impugned order dated 05.02.2021. c. The Appellant had moved the application before the Adjudicating Authority to allow it to purchase the premises and also sought directions to allow appellant to continue to occupy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-auction and asked the Appellant herein to handover the vacant possession of the said premises and also directed the Appellant herein to deposit the arrears in rent due from January, 2020 till date in respect of the said premises. The Adjudicating Authority has permitted the Appellant herein to participate in the e-auction. 5. The Respondent - Liquidator has submitted that the Appellant has no locus standi, he is neither a stake holder nor a bidder participated in the auction done by the Liquidator. He is only an illegal occupant of the premises and has cited the judgment passed by this Appellate Tribunal in D & I Taxcon Services Pvt Ltd Vs. Mr. Vinod Kumar Kothari - Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1347 of 2019 NCLAT that "being a tenant d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 28.07.2021 has already observed that the Intervenor - Financial Creditor (SBI) is not a necessary party and accordingly has rejected application for impleadment. b. The Appellant was supposed to vacate the premises in April 2019 and inspite of agreeing to vacate in two months' time in December, 2019 has not yet vacated the same either one pretext or another. c. Liquidation process is governed by Chapter III Part - II of the Code. The Regulation governing Liquidation process providing elaborate provisions on "Realizations of Assets" vide Chapter - VI of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. The Appellant is forcing the Liquidator to sale the property to them only which is not permissible under the provisions of the Code and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
