P. Jayagovind Vs Bijoy Prabhakaran Pulipra (NCLAT Chennai)
In the case of P. Jayagovind vs Bijoy Prabhakaran Pulipra RP & Others, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, addressed multiple interlocutory applications alongside the primary appeal. Among these, IA No. 666/2023, which sought leave to appeal, required no orders as it was clarified by the Principal Bench of NCLAT that under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), any aggrieved party could file an appeal. Another key application, IA No. 665/2023, pertained to condoning a delay of 257 days in refiling the appeal. While the reasons provided for the delay were deemed unsatisfactory, the tribunal accepted the argument that the delay resulted from the conduct of the previous counsel. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was taken up for admission on its merits.
The appeal challenged the validity of an order dated February 22, 2021, issued by the Adjudicating Authority in proceedings under Sections 30 and 31 of the IBC. This order had approved the resolution plan, which was subsequently implemented on July 30, 2021. The Resolution Professional’s responsibilities were discharged following the implementation. The tribunal noted that since the resolution plan had been fully executed and there was no specific challenge to its approval, the appeal lacked any substantive cause for adjudication. As a result, the NCLAT deemed the appeal infructuous and dismissed it, citing the passage of time and the complete implementation of the resolution plan as the primary reasons. This judgment underscores the limited scope of appeals once a resolution plan is implemented under the IBC framework.
