2023 (7) TMI 1567

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Chitra Rentala, Mr. Rajat Jariwal, Ms. Shatakshi Tripathi and Mr. Aditya Dhupar, Advocates for R-1. ORDER These two Appeals have been filed against the order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Court II by which applications filed by Successful Resolution Applicant to substitute itself in the place of Administrator who had filed application under Section 43, 44 and 66 of the Code has been allowed. 2. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 475-476 of 2023, learned senior counsel Shri S. Niranjan Reddy submits that the facts in the case giving rise to this Appeal are little different since in the facts of present case the applications which w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rporate Debtor as per the agreement with the Appellant. 4. Shri Arun Kathpalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent refuting the submissions of both learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the issues which have been sought to be raised are fully covered by judgment of this Appellate Tribunal dated 15.05.2023 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 437 of 2023, Kapil Wadhawan vs. Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors., where Appeals were filed against same order dated 09.02.2023 and the question answered by this Appellate Tribunal is that provision of the plan authorize/empowers the Successful Resolution Applicant to prosecute the preferential transactions under Section 43, 44 are valid and substitution of the Succes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is that any avoidance application, which has been filed subsequent to approval of the Plan cannot be pursued and the order of the Adjudicating Authority substituting the Piramal in those application deserves to be set aside. 24. The timeline for filing avoidance application under Regulation 35A have been held to be not mandatory, however, the applications have to be filed in a reasonable time and any avoidance application, which is filed with inordinate delay can be refused to be entertained by the Adjudicating Authority. The submission which has been pressed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that avoidance applications, which were filed after approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, could not have been entertained. In the C....