TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1576
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.445/2023 2. As far as Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.445/2023 is concerned, the Appellant who happens to be the suspended director of the Applicant (the Corporate Debtor i.e., M/s. Steel Hypermart India Private Limited) to the proceedings under the Section 10 of I & B Code, 2016, challenges the impugned order passed in IA No. 151/2023 in CP(IB) No. 216/BB/2020, by virtue of which the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, had vacated the Interim Order, which already stood granted on 01.07.2022, in the nature of directing the parties to maintain status quo in the CIRP Proceedings of M/s. Steel Hypermart India Private Limited (the Corporate Debtor). 3. Primarily, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that, the order of vacation of the status quo order, happens to be in contravention to the principles of audi alteram partem, as the Appellant was not heard prior to passing the said order. However from a reading of the impugned order, it is seen that the principles of audi alteram partem, is, quite explicitly shown to have been followed because when the application IA No. 151/2023 was itself presented before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority on 10.11.2023, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the loss suffered, if any, in this regard. Since the facts of this case do not make out any extraordinary ground for permitting the respondent to put up construction and alienate the same, we think both the courts below, namely, the lower appellate court and the High Court erred in making the impugned orders. The said orders are set aside and the order of the trial court is restored." 5. At the stage of granting the interim order of 01.07.2022, the Ld. Tribunal has exercised its inherent discretionary powers, and at that stage, the opposite party to the proceedings was not able to avail the opportunity to object to the grant of interim order. 6. It is only when the entire facts were brought on record by the Opposite Party/Respondent before Tribunal, by raising their objections and by narrating the impediments, which were being created in the CIRP proceedings due to the operation of the status quo order of 01.07.2022, the Ld. Tribunal, while exercising its discretionary power and recording its findings, revisited the order of 01.07.2022, which is within its power since the order being challenged is interlocutory in nature, and vacated the status quo order. 7. It cannot be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al contingencies, to ensure smooth functioning of the Tribunal and the proceedings therein as contemplated under a statute and that it should not be utilized to be exercised for passing of an order of an interim nature, which creates an impediment in the proceeding itself that too in a proceedings where time plays a pivotal role. In that eventuality, the appellant cannot really have a say. Further, contrary to his claim that he was not heard at the stage when the interim order was vacated, it is clearly evident from bare reading of the order itself that Ld. Adjudicating Authority has assigned reasons in Para 3 & 5 of the impugned order as to why and under what circumstances the interim order was required to be vacated. In this context, it would not be out of context to observe that the order which was sought for, that is, vacation of the status quo order under Section 60 (5) to be read with Rule 11, was itself a subject matter in certain interim applications filed earlier in the impugned order and has been referred therein being IA No. 226/2022, 227/2022 & 228/2022. 11. Thus, continuance of an interim order, is obviously an exercise of the discretionary powers of the Tribunal gi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the interim order granted on 01.07.2022 by the impugned order, which is under challenge in the instant company appeal does not call for any interference in the exercise of our Appellate Jurisdiction under Section 61 of I & B Code, 2016. The 'appeal' lacks 'merit', and the same is 'dismissed', accordingly. Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.57/2024 14. We will now proceed to deal with the connected Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.57/2024, where the Appellant questions the order, dated 18.12.2023, as it was passed in IA No. 226/2022 in CP(IB)216/BB/2020. The impugned order in IA No. 226/2022 has to be read with IA No. 151/2023, which was the subject matter in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.445/2023. But the context in which the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.57/2024 is being argued, as per the pleading which had been raised by the Appellant in the company appeal, it was with regards to the implications of the relief sought for, i.e., for withdrawing the invitation of Expression of Interest (EoI) issued on 13.05.2022, and to re-issue it after the valuation of the properties of the Corporate Debtor. The Ld. Tribunal while passing the impugned order, on the said IA N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o consideration, it does not speak, that the said provisions would at all be attracted to be applied in relation to, circumstances where the transaction audit is required to be gone into for the purposes of the proceedings under Section 66 of the I & B Code, 2016, which is independent in its nature and it will not be clouded by the aspect of transaction audit, as it has been prescribed for under Section 43 of the I & B Code, 2016, for the purposes of 'look back period' of two years, as prescribed therein. 18. There is another aspect, which we think apt to observe that, in any judicial proceedings where there is an endeavour made by the Court or a Tribunal created under law, with the objective to retrieve truth to arrive at a conclusion and to unearth any irregularity, or any illegal transaction which may have a bearing on the proceedings, there cannot be any enforced restriction on the transaction audit to be conducted, which aims to arrive at a logical conclusion, as to what implication will such transactions covered under Section 66 of I & B Code, 2016, would have. The lookback period is only a procedural provision that provides a guideline for the purposes of arriving at a tr....