# In the matter of Ashish Chaturvedi Vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. and Ors. CA(AT)(Ins) No. 05 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-02-10. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00423. The case involves an appeal against an order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the Adjudicating…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 10 Feb 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00423
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/ashish-chaturvedi-vs-inox-leisure-ltd-and-ors-ca-048b10af

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) New Delhi Bench - III. The Adjudicating Authority had allowed an application filed by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) for exclusion of time. The Appellant, the Ex-Director of A to Z Barter Pvt. Ltd., argues that the Adjudicating Authority overlooked essential facts and wrongly allowed the application. The appellant contends that the Respondent Company/Operational Creditor had full knowledge of the impugned order dated 05.12.2018 for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the 3rd Respondent Company. The appellant also argues that the IRP did not start the CIRP process and his status was not changed

…

## Facts

Ashish Chaturvedi, the Ex-Director of A to Z Barter Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against an order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) New Delhi Bench - III. The order pertained to CA-862/CIII/ND/2019 in (IB)643(ND)2018. The Adjudicating Authority had allowed an application filed by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) for exclusion of time in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of A to Z Barter Pvt. Ltd. The Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority overlooked essential facts and wrongly allowed the application for exclusion of time. The Appellant contended that the Respondent Company/Operational Creditor (Inox Leisure Ltd.) had full knowledge of the impugned order dated 05.12.2018 for

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in allowing the application for exclusion of time filed by …

**Ratio:** The ratio is based on the principle that the Adjudicating Authority has the power to

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the order dated 05.12.2018 was not communicated to the IRP or the

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of the law is that the Adjudicating Authority has the

…

**Application:** The ratio and reasoning were applied to the specific facts of the case, where

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** VENUGOPAL…; V. P. S…
- **Appellants:** Ashish Chat…
- **Respondents:** A to Z Barter…; Inox Leisur…
- **Advocates:** Manoj Kuma…; Ashutosh kr…; +2 more

## Timeline

- **2018-05-12 — Order by Adjudicating…**: Adjudicating Authority passed an order for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution…
- **2019-10-12 — Impugned…**: Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order allowing the application for exclusion…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 12 — Time-limit for completion of insolvency resolution…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-12)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/ashish-chaturvedi-vs-inox-leisure-ltd-and-ors-ca-048b10af