Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a Company Appeal filed by Achal Kumar Jindal, a member of the suspended board of directors of Sulojay Realty Pvt. Ltd., challenging an order from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that admitted a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the company. The NCLT had directed the appointment of a Resolution Professional after allowing a petition from the respondent, Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka. Following the admission of the CIRP, the appellant was directed to deposit a significant amount as part of the proceedings. The appellant complied by depositing the amount in an interest-bearing account. Subsequently, the Appellate Tribunal terminated the CIRP process, leading to a civil appeal by the respondent to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal but allowed the respondent to withdraw the deposited amount. The appellant then filed an application for withdrawal of the deposit, misinterpreting the Supreme Court's order. The Tribunal clarified that the withdrawal was to be made by the respondent as per the Apex Court's directive, leading to the rejection of the appellant's application and the allowance of the respondent's application for withdrawal of the deposit. The Tribunal directed that the amount deposited be remitted to the respondent, Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka, as per the Supreme Court's ruling.
Headnote
A) Corporate Law - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Withdrawal of Deposit - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 - The court held that the amount deposited by the Corporate Debtor could be withdrawn by the appellant as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which specified that the withdrawal must be made by the appellant in the Civil Appeal. The application for withdrawal by the respondent was rejected based on the clear directive from the Apex Court (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amount deposited in compliance with the interim order can be withdrawn by the appellant as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Final Decision
The Tribunal allowed the application for withdrawal of the deposit by the respondent, rejecting the appellant's application based on the Supreme Court's clear directive that the amount deposited could only be withdrawn by the respondent.
Law Points
- Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
- withdrawal of deposit
- compliance with court orders
