TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant in the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 296 / 2024, which has been preferred under Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016, challenges the Impugned Order dated 05.04.2024, as it was passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority in IA (IBC) No.1459 / 2023, as preferred in CP (IBC) No. 111 / 7 / HDB / 2017. 2. Consequent to the Impugned Order, the learned Adjudicating Authority had rejected the claim of the Appellant on the ground, that, it was barred by limitation, and there is an absence of proof of claim. 3. Besides that, the learned Adjudicating Authority has observed that since, admittedly the claim was submitted at a much belated stage, there is no provision available under law, to entertain any such claim, especially wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hyderabad. 8. So far as the proceedings of the CIRP is concerned, it stood initiated against the Corporate Debtor, as back as on 07.08.2017. Consequent to this, as there were no satisfactory Resolution Plans received, the Corporate Debtor was directed to be put to Liquidation by an Order of Ld. NCLT dated 27.08.2018. 9. After the Corporate Debtor was put to Liquidation by the aforesaid Order dated 27.08.2018, the Liquidator is said to have published Form A on 29.08.2018, thereby inviting the claims to be submitted by 26.09.2018, the fact of which has not been disclosed in the Appeal. 10. The Appellant contends that, the knowledge of the Liquidation proceedings of the Corporate Debtor, was imparted to him from a local Counsel only o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o rectify the defects as pointed in the Application / Appeal, preferred under Section 42 on 16.12.2020, but, it is an admitted case that, on 03.05.2023, the local Counsel of the Appellant was directed to re-file the Appeal under Section 42, as the previous filed Application was not traceable and Section 42 continued to remain pending, in the shape of a defective Appeal. 15. The Respondent contends that, it is an absolute false case, which has been raised by the Appellant and that too, without the same being substantiated from record, that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority itself on 03.05.2023, has advised the Appellant, to file another Application / Appeal under Section 42 of the Code, and the same was filed on 16.07.2023, and was numbered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which is required to be considered by us is that, as to whether, during the pendency of a defective Appeal preferred by the Appellant prior in time, which was not rectified, the Appellant could have filed another Application in the shape of an Appeal under Section 42 of the Code on 16.07.2023, when particularly, he himself has opted out not to rectify the defect, thus pointed out by the Registry of the NCLT and the same was not rectified, within the prescribed time provided by the Registry. We are of the view that the subsequent Appeal preferred under Section 42 of the Code, would not be maintainable, because, the Appellant cannot take the advantage of his own wrong of not rectifying the defects of the initial Appeal filed as back as on 16....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the perspective, with regards to the allocation of shares and the sale of the Assets of the Corporate Debtor on a clean-slate basis. However, the said issue is not required to be adverted by us, owing to the facts which had already referred above, that once the Appellant himself has raised a claim at a belated stage and since, the Plan has already been approved and the Corporate Debtor has already been sold as a going concern, no interferences is required for at this stage. 22. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant, had particularly drawn the attention of this Appellate Tribunal to a finding pertaining to the implications of Regulation 16 as contained under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, ....