National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence vs M/S Shree Ganesh Jewellery House & Ors on 26 October, 2021
1
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH,
NEW DELHI
I.A. No. 970-971 of 2020
In
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 796 of 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Manikanchan Special Economic Zone Through
Deputy Development Commissioner. ...Applicant/Intervener
In
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 796 of 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ... Appellant
Vs.
M/s Shree Ganesh Jewellery House & Ors. ...Respondents
Present:
For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent: Mr. Gaurav H Sethi, Advocate for R1
Mr. Krishnendu Dutta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Aayush
Kevlani, Ishaan Chhaya and Mr. Debarshi Dutta,
Mr. Anoop Kumar Singh, (liquidator) Advocates
for R2.
Mr. RK Rawal, Advocate for R3,4,5&6.
Mr. Sachin Dutta, Sr. Adv. with Ruchir Mishra,
Mr. Ramneek Mishra, Intervener/Applicant in
I.A. No. 970-971 of 2020
ORDER
(26.10.2021) This order shall govern disposal of I.A No. 970 of 2020 an Application on behalf of the Manikanchan Special Economic Zone through Dy. Development Commissioner for intervention in this Appeal i.e. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 796 of 2019 and another I.A. No. 971 of 2020 an Application for stay of I.A. No. 970-971 of 2020 In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 796 of 2019 2 the operation of the directions issued by the Adjudicating Authority order dated 23.04.2019 passed in M.A. No. 21-22/KB/2019 in CP (IB) No. 579/KB/2017.
2. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Adjudicating Authority passed a common order dated 23.04.2019. This order was challenged by the Applicant/Intervenor in CA (AT) (Ins) 94 of 2020. However, the same has been dismissed as barred by limitation with the liberty to move intervention Application in this Appeal vide order dated 20.01.2020 by this Appellate Tribunal. The same order is challenged in this Appeal. Pursuant to this order, the Applicant has filed this Application for intervention. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant may be permitted to intervene in this Appeal.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents vehemently oppose the application and submit that allowing the Application means permitting the Applicant to agitate the grounds which were raised in the Appeal CA (AT) (Ins) No. 94 of 2020, whereas the same has been dismissed as barred by limitation. Therefore, the Application is liable to be dismissed.
4. We have carefully examined the grounds stated in the Application. We are of the view that the Applicant should have been allowed to intervene in this Appeal, to do justice with the parties.
5. Thus, I.A. No. 970 of 2020 is allowed and we permit the Applicant to intervene in this Appeal.
I.A. No. 970-971 of 2020 In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 796 of 2019 3
6. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant in I.A. No. 971 of 2020 prayed that the operation of the impugned order i.e. order dated 23.04.2019 may be stayed. It is also pointed out that in the present Appeal vide order dated 06.08.2019 this Appellate Tribunal has already directed that till further orders RP will not take possession of the properties belonging to the Corporate Debtor.
7. We have considered the submissions, we have already stayed the operation of the impugned order vide order dated 06.08.2019, therefore, no further orders are required.
8. Thus, I.A No. 971 of 2020 is disposed of.
[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial) [Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical) SC I.A. No. 970-971 of 2020 In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 796 of 2019