TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, holding that the review application was misconceived since there was no provision in IBC for review of an order of Adjudicating Authority - the order dated 4.11.2020 is not a substantive order, but only an order seeking help of police authorities for locating the vehicles. The substantive order dated 26.9.2019 has assumed finality, as has been noted by us earlier. The contention of the Appellant that he filed a review application under rule 11 read with Section 154 of NCLAT Rules and hence he waited for an order on this application before filing the appeal is not tenable. It is amply clear that there is no provision of review under the IBC and hence a misconceived review application cannot provide relaxation in limitation to the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 in CP (IB) 1493(PB)/2018. 2. The order dated 26.9.2019 passed in CA-1326(PB)/2019, passed by the Adjudicating Authority, includes the following:- Mr. Neeraj Jha shall hand over the custody of vehicle nos. UK 07 BU 0008 - Range Rover, UK 16C 0001 Porsche, DL 2CAT 7722 Range Rover EVOQUE 5 DR to the Resolution Professional within one week and affidavit to that effect be filed. 3. The relevant portion in order dated 4.11.2020 passed in CA-1326(PB)/2019 is as follows:- With regard to the order dated 26.09.2019, this bench passed in CA-1326/2019 held that R3 (Mr. Neeraj Jha)shall handover the custody of the vehicles to the RP within one week and affidavit to that effect be filed and shall supply remaining documents, inf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his capacity as director. The Jaguar Land Rover vehicle was hypothecated to ICICI Bank and Porsche car was hypothecated to HDFC Bank, and instalments were paid by the Corporate Debtor. The Ld. Counsel of Appellant has further stated that since the Corporate Debtor was unable to pay regular EMIs for the two vehicles, he asked the Corporate Debtor in August, 2018to get the vehicles transferred in his name, as he agreed to settle the loans with respective banks. 5. The Ld. Counsel for Appellant has further stated that in October 2018, Company Petition No. 1493 (PB)/2018 was filed against the Corporate Debtor for insolvency resolution and CIRP was initiated on 15.4.2019 (Rejoinder of Appellant, pg. 12). It is the Appellant s case that since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.8.2021) for official use. He has further stated that the Appellant has claimed to sell two vehicles (which are the subject matter of order dated 26.09.2019) to one Mr. Anil Bhati for raising funds to pay third parties, but since such the sale was done during the corporate insolvency resolution process, it violates condition of moratorium during which period transfer of Corporate Debtor s asset is prohibited. Therefore, the then Resolution Profession obtained order dated 26.9.2019 from the Adjudicating Authority to get custody of vehicles which were owned by the corporate debtor but were in possession of the Appellant. 9. We note that the order dated 26.9.2019 was passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority at the request of the then Resol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on this application before filing the appeal is not tenable. It is amply clear that there is no provision of review under the IBC and hence a misconceived review application cannot provide relaxation in limitation to the Appellant. 11. On a perusal of the order dated 4.11.2020 in CA 1326/2019 (pp.33-34 of Appeal Paperbook) the following is recorded therein: Against this order dated 26.09.2019 R3 has filed a Review Application under Rule 11 r/w 154 of NCLT Rules, but no stay has been granted over the order dated 26.09.2019. 12. Thus it is clear that the Appellant Niraj Jha had knowledge of the order dated 26.09.2019. His claim that he could appeal against the said order only after receipt of its copy on 12.02.2021 does not ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
