# 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-00425. 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-00425
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/ashish-chaturvedi-vs-inox-leisure-ltd-and-ors-ca-226cfca7

## 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 appellant, the Ex-Director of A to Z Barter Pvt. Ltd., filed the appeal being aggrieved by the Adjudicating Authority's order. The Adjudicating Authority had observed that the Resolution Professional, Mr. Anoop Kumar Goyal, was present, and the Operational Creditor was also present with counsel. The Resolution Professional requested exclusion of time from 12.12.2018, citing non-communication of the order. The Adjudicating Authority allowed the application, excluding 370 days from the CIRP period. The appellant challenges this order, arguing that the Adjudicating Authority overlooked essential facts and wrongly

…

## Facts

Ashish Chaturvedi, the Ex-Director of A to Z Barter Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench - III. The Adjudicating Authority had allowed the application of the Resolution Professional, Mr. Anoop Kumar Goyal, to exclude a period of 370 days from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) timeline. The basis for the exclusion was that the order appointing Mr. Goyal as the IRP was not communicated to him in a timely manner. The Adjudicating Authority's order was dated 05.12.2018, but the IRP only received an email about his appointment on 12.11.2019 from the Operational Creditor, Inox Leisure Ltd. The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in excluding a period of 370 days from the …

**Ratio:** The principle that an act of the court should not harm any party ('Actus Curiae Neminem

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT reasoned that the delay in communication of the order appointing the IRP was

…

**Interpretation:** This issue involves the interpretation of the powers of the Adjudicating

…

**Application:** In this specific case, the ratio was applied to the fact that the IRP was not

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** VENUGOPAL…; V. P. S…
- **Appellants:** Ashish Chat…
- **Respondents:** A to Z Barter…; Inox Leisur…

## Timeline

- **2018-01-05 — Order by Adjudicating…**: Order provided under Para 11 that a copy of the order shall be communicated to the IRP as…
- **2018-12-12 — Initial Ord…**: Date from which the Resolution Professional prayed for exclusion of time, citing…

## 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-226cfca7