TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 82 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2022 - [ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson And [ Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Ms. Pooja Mahajan , Mr. Savar Mahajan , Ms. Mahima Singh , Ms. Arveena Sharma Ms. Srishti Kapoor , Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Avinash Rajan Khanolkar , Advocate for R - 2. Mr. Ruturaj Bankar , Advocate for R - 3. Mr. Rishi Gautam Singh and Ms. Pallavi , Advocates for R - 4 . ORDER Heard Counsel for the Appellant. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-III in I.A. No. 1047 of 2020. 2. The Appellant Managing Director of the Suspended Board of Corporate Debtor M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Corporate Debtor where it is contended that Suspended Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor had every jurisdiction to challenge the proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act by the bank for sale of the barge which belongs to the Corporate Debtor. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Bank also submitted that Adjudicating Authority has not considered the merits of the application and has only rejected the application on the ground of locus of the appellant. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant in support of her submission that the Managing Director has locus to file the appeal has relied on judgment of this Tribunal in Indian Overseas Bank Vs. RCM Infrastructure Ltd. Anr. in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 736 of 2020 and further t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he SARFAESI Act is prohibited. We are of the view that the appellant Bank could not have continued the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act ones the CIRP was initiated an the moratorium was ordered. 12. The judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the above case clearly support the submission of the counsel for the appellant that appellant was entitled to file an application under Section 60 (5) before the Adjudicating Authority. 13. We are of the view that Adjudicating Authority committed error in rejecting the application only on the ground that appellant has no locus. 14. In view of the aforesaid the order impugned is set aside and the application filed by the appellant is revived before the Adjudicating Authority which may be cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
