9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inash 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/s Virgo Marine Shipyards filed an I.A. 1047/2020 where several reliefs were claimed as has been noted in the order of the Adjudicating Authority itself. 3. The CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commended on 21.01.2020. It appears that prior to the commencement of CIRP the Respondent Bank had initiated proceedings under SARFA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank Vs. RCM Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr ., 2022 [SCC Online SC 634]. 10. We have perused the judgment which has been relied by Counsel for the Appellant. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 32,34,35 laid down following: "32. It is further to be noted that the present case arise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile 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 considered and decided in accordance with law. 15. The counsel for the appellant submits that during pendency of the application before the Adjudicating Authority an interim order dated 19.08.2020 was passed which was also continued by this Tribunal vide its order dated 27.01.2022. 16. In view of the aforesaid, we by allowing this appeal also continue the interim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
