Full Text
Date of Decision: 23rd December, 2022
DHANKALASH DISTRIBUTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Dewan and Ms. Nadeem Khan, Advocates, (M-8527611077).
AFFAIRS & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr. Keshav Mann, Mr. Gaurav Kumar &
Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocates & Ms. Archana Surve, Govt. Pleader for
R1-2,(M-9811125100), (e-mail-asheeshjain.cgsc@gmail.com)
Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Anirudh Bhahrv, Mr. Manmeet Singh, Mr. A. Robin Frey and Mr. Kamlendra P. Singh, Advocates for R-3, (M-8839680052).
Mr. Manik Dogra and Mr. Kanav Madnani, Advocates for R-4, (M-9811439334).
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner- Dhankalash Distributors Pvt. Ltd. has filed the present petition seeking early disposal of the complaints made by it against Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 14th January, 2022 and 17th January, 2022 to Respondent No.2- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). The case of the Petitioner is that it is one of the financial creditors of M/s Piyush IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent No.3 is the Resolution Professional (hereinafter ‘RP’) appointed by the NCLT qua the said company and Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is underway.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that there are several irregularities committed by Respondent Nos.[3] & 4 qua whom two complaints have been preferred by the Petitioner dated 14th January, 2022 and 17th January, 2022 to the IBBI which is the sector regulator. Ld. Counsel submits that such a complaint has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of the IBBI under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Grievance and Complaint Handling Procedure) Regulations, 2017 (hereinafter ‘Regulations’). It is, further, submitted by the ld. Counsel, relying upon Regulation 7 dealing with disposal of complaints, that the complaints when received ought to be disposed of within the time limits as specified in the Regulations. However, in the present case, despite almost a year having been passed since the filing of the complaints, no decision has been taken by the IBBI.
4. Mr. Asheesh Jain, ld. Counsel appearing for the IBBI submits that he wishes to seek instructions in the matter and in any case IBBI would consider the matter and pass a decision in accordance with law.
5. On behalf of Respondent No.3 and 4 it is highlighted by ld. Sr. counsel that an application has already been preferred by this very Petitioner before the NCLT raising similar grievances against the RP and Respondent No.4.
6. The matter has been heard. The primary grievance in this petition is in respect of non-adjudication of complaints dated 14th January, 2022 and 17th January, 2022 filed by the Petitioner. It is noticed by the Court that under Regulation 7 specific time periods have been fixed for disposal of complaints. Regulation 7 reads as under:
7. Since the complaints are approximately 10 to 11 months old, the IBBI shall now take a decision on the same and communicate the same to the Petitioner within a period of one month from today.
8. In the application filed by the Petitioner before the NCLT raising objection in respect of the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors, the following averments have been made against Respondent No.3 & 4:
9. Considering the fact that the said application is also pending before the NCLT, the IBBI shall place its decision before the NCLT as well, for consideration.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the allegations made in the complaints.
11. Needless to add, in terms of Regulation 7, any remedies which the Petitioner may have in respect of the decision of the IBBI, are left open to be availed of, in accordance with law.
12. With these observations, the present petition, along with all pending applications, is disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J DECEMBER 23, 2022 dj/sk