LAWS(SC)-2025-4-28

A. RAJENDRA Vs. GONUGUNTA MADHUSUDHAN RAO

Decided On April 04, 2025
A. Rajendra Appellant
V/S
Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been preferred against the Order dtd. 18/1/2024 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "NCLAT") where appeals preferred by the appellant herein stand dismissed as a consequence of dismissal of the applications of condonation of delay on the even date.

(2.) Two appeals were preferred before the NCLAT against two separate orders passed on 20/7/2023 by the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "NCLT") where an application filed by the appellant herein who is the shareholder and suspended Managing Director of Dharti Dredging and Infrastructure Limited (Corporate Debtor) under Sec. 60(5) read with Sec. 35(1)(N) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "IBC") seeking a direction to the respondent(s) to place the Resolution Plans submitted by him before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for consideration along with the other Resolution Plan and for staying the voting results on the Resolution Plan which was dismissed and another application preferred by Respondent No. 1, Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor (hereinafter referred to as "RP") under Sec. 30(6) and 31(1) of the IBC read with regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 in short regulations for approval of the Resolution Plan dtd. 10/1/2023 of consortium Respondent No. 5 herein had been allowed.

(3.) It needs to be noted here at this stage that the appeals were preferred without any application for condonation of delay by the appellant herein with a declaration in Paragraph 6 of the grounds of appeal that the same is within the period specified in Sec. 61 of the IBC. Upon notice having been issued to the respondents in the appeals, objection was raised by the respondents to the effect that the appeals were beyond the period of limitation, applications for condonation of delay were preferred in both the appeals.