TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 485
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Chintan Gandhi, Mr. Anurag Anand, Mr. Himanshu K., Mr. Mukul K., Advocates ORDER ( Hybrid Mode ) I.A. No. 5116 of 2023. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing of the Appeal. The Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 2nd May, 2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority deciding Preferential Transaction Application being I.A. No. 1927 of 2021 filed by the Resolution Professional. The Appellant was Respondent No. 6 in the said application. By the Order dated 2nd May, 2023, direction was issued against the Respondents including the Appellant herein to contribute sum. Appellant after passing the said order filed an application being I.A. No. 2679 of 2023 where following reliefs were sought: "A. the Hon'ble Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pvt. Ltd. as well as the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 6 SCC 782, DSR Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors . 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent refuting the submissions of the Appellant submits that the limitation for filing the Appeal against the Order dated 2nd May, 2023 shall commence from 2nd May, 2023. Learned Counsel for the Appellant was present on 2nd May, 2023 when the matter was heard and the limitation for filing the Appeal shall not be suspended till 17th August, 2023 when subsequent application is decided. He further submits that there is no question of merger of the order dated 2nd May, 2023 in subsequent order dated 17th August, 2023. 6. We have considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pers, and the stamp of the Corporate Debtor was affixed on any of the place in the said MOU. Also, the said MOU had no witness, and Mr. Vijay Machinder has signed on each page, except last page, once thereby suggesting that the said signatures was on behalf of his proprietorship firm and not behalf of Corporate Debtor. Further, this agreement having been entered in the look back period deserve to be ignored. At the insistence of the applicant in 2679 of 2023 we clarify that the Respondent No. 6 in I.A.-1927 of 2021 had filed reply dated 28.12.2021, and this clarification shall form prat of our order dated 02.05.2023 in I.A.-1927 of 2021." 9. It is clear that court has also issued a clarification that Respondent No. 6 in I.A. No. 1927 of 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in which the same is made are re- heard and a fresh decree or order passed in the same. It is manifest that in such a situation the subsequent decree alone is appealable not because it is an order in review but because it is a decree that is passed in a proceeding after the earlier decree passed in the very same proceedings has been vacated by the Court hearing the review petition. 25.2. The second situation that one can conceive of is where a Court or Tribunal makes an order in a review petition by which the review petition is allowed and the decree/order under review reversed or modified. Such an order shall then be a composite order whereby the Court not only vacates the earlier decree or order but simultaneous with such vacation of ....