Rajiv Shrivastava v. Shri Manish Kumar Gupta Rp Of Three C Project Pvt. Ltd. And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant is an allottee and purchaser of a residential unit in the real estate project "Lotus Zing." The Appellant filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority seeking appropriate directions. Because the Adjudicating Authority had not decided that application, the Appellant filed the present appeal. The impugned order dated 11.08.2021 is a one-line order which states: "List the matter for hearing on 22.09.2021." The Appellate Tribunal heard senior counsel for the Appellant and counsel for the Respondent in the present appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is maintainable where the impugned order is a one-line listing order and no adverse order has been passed against the appellant.
2. Whether the appellant qualifies as an "aggrieved person" entitled to file an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC in respect of the listed order dated 11.08.2021.
3. Whether the pendency or earlier disposal of a challenge to the same impugned order (as noted in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 682 of 2021 disposed on 03.09.2021) affects the maintainability of the present appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant (an allottee/purchaser of a residential unit at Lotus Zing) filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority seeking appropriate directions.
• The Adjudicating Authority had not decided that application; for that reason, the Appellant filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent's counsel submitted that the same impugned order had already been challenged before this Appellate Tribunal in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 682 of 2021 by Jatin Bachani, and that appeal was disposed of by order dated 03.09.2021.
• On that basis, the Respondent submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable in light of the earlier order and therefore liable to be dismissed.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal proceeded by examining the impugned order and the parties' submissions. The impugned order was a brief administrative listing dated 11.08.2021 directing that the matter be listed for hearing on 22.09.2021. The Tribunal observed that the Appellant's senior counsel was unable to demonstrate how the Appellant was aggrieved by this one-line listing order.

The Tribunal noted the Respondent's submission that the same impugned order had been the subject of a prior challenge in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 682 of 2021 by Jatin Bachani, which had been disposed of by order dated 03.09.2021. Taking these facts together, the Tribunal concluded that no adverse order had been passed against the Appellant and therefore the Appellant did not qualify as an "aggrieved person" entitled to file an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC. The Tribunal applied the maintainability requirement under Section 61 as the decisive legal principle for dismissal.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE

The Tribunal held that the appeal is not maintainable because no adverse order was passed against the Appellant and the Appellant is not an "aggrieved person" within the meaning of Section 61 of the IBC. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. The Tribunal also recorded that there was no order as to costs.

Direct consequences: The Appellant's appeal is dismissed and there is no costs order. The opinion does not discuss any broader legal implications or the setting of a new precedent; accordingly, the decision operates as the disposition of this appeal without indicating the creation of new binding precedent.