TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 714
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Thriyambak J. Kannan, Advocate for R4 ORDER Oral Judgment : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial): 1. The Appellant herein is the suspended Director of M/s. Star Trace Private Limited. The proceedings under Section 9 of I & B Code, 2016 stood initiated against the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Star Trace Private Limited, by M/s. Umiya Development Center Private Limited, the Operational Creditor who filed the Application under Section 9 of the I & B Code, 2016, in CP (IBC) / 304 / CHE / 2020, for the defaulted amount of Rs. 7,74,25,437/- which was allegedly due to be paid as on 03.02.2018. The Corporate Debtor was admitted into CIRP on 09.08.2024 and upon failure of CIRP, was put into liquidation on 09.08.2024. Subsequent to thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration without grant of any interim order. Any subsequent orders that would have been passed thereof after 23.06.2025, would be nothing but, a consequential order as a consequence of compliance of the earlier order i.e. 23.06.2025, seeking a direction by way of and as against the Appellant for handing over of the possession. 5. Later on, an order came to be passed on 18.07.2025, by Ld. NCLT in IA (IBC) / 931 (CHE) / 2025 whereby the Ld. Adjudicating Authority had directed the S.H.O. concerned to provide police assistance to ensure handing over of the possession of the Assets in compliance of the earlier order dated 23.06.2025. The said order was challenged by the Appellant by filing Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 516 / 2025. 6. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 23.06.2025 and 18.07.2025 itself is questionable as the earlier Orders dated 09.08.2024, 23.06.2025 and 18.07.2025 have been challenged by him and are pending consideration before this Appellate Tribunal. 9. It has to be kept in mind that when the impugned order dated 29.09.2025 is nothing, but an order which is consequential in nature, having being passed in furtherance of the earlier order of 23.06.2025 and 18.07.2025 and the order of 23.06.2025 has been confirmed by us with the dismissal of the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 516 / 2025, by our Judgment of 16.10.2025, the subsequent order passed on 29.09.2025, which is impugned in the instant Company Appeal, will only be a continuity flowing from the earlier order which stands ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of 29.09.2025. 12. The Ld. Counsel for the Successful Purchaser, had drawn the attention of this Appellate Tribunal to the order passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority on 15.10.2025, wherein he has observed that, if we go through the findings which has been recorded therein while issuing directions to provide the assistance of the S.H.O. to take possession, a finding has been recorded in the order of 15.10.2025, that the possession of Asset No. 1 has already been taken up and a compliance report has been submitted. Further the objection, raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that the Successful Purchaser would not have any say because he was not a party to the proceedings, would have no bearing for the reason, being that after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se, which has been sought to be agitated, does not survive as of now, owing to the fact that the possession has been taken in relation to the Asset No. 1 and the same has been observed in the order of 15.10.2025 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. 15. The Appellant at different stages, has preferred, various Company Appeals against the interlocutory orders passed against him, the details of which has already been dealt with in the order. As of now, as against the order of 29.09.2025 which is subject matter of challenge in the instant Company Appeal, no cause as such would survive in favour of the Appellant, until and unless he questions the order dismissing his Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 516 / 2025, which may not be of any ....