2022 (1) TMI 215

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....k Srivastava, Member (T)} 1. The Appellant has filed two appeals, viz. CA (AT) (INS) 198/2021 assailing the order dated 4.11.2020 (Impugned Order 1) and CA (AT)(INS) 199/2021 assailing the order dated 26.9.2019, both passed in CA-1326(PB)/2019 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:- "......

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g and financial assistance relating to the business of the corporate debtor. He has added that the Corporate Debtor provided him with two vehicles viz. Jaguar Land Rover (Registration No. DL 2 CAT 7722) and Porsche Car (Registration No. UK 07 BU 0008) for use in 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 f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rector of the Corporate Debtor since 10.10.2014 and was provided three vehicles, viz. UK 07 BU 0008 (Jaguar Land Rover), UK 16C 0001 and Porsche car (Registration No. DL 2 CAT 7722) as detailed in paras 2 and 3 of the liquidator's reply (Dy. No. 28837 dated 12.8.2021) 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 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 st....