# In the matter of C. Sivasami vs. A.R. Ramasubramania Raja & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2024-07-24. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLAT-00307. The case involves an appeal against an order by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 24 Jul 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLAT-00307
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/c-sivasami-vs-ar-ramasubramania-raja-ors-e71437af

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench) regarding the liquidation of M/s. Topknit Processing Mills Pvt. Ltd., the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant, who is the Successful Resolution Applicant/Promoter, challenged the Impugned Order dated 10.05.2024, which rejected his application (IA No. 1748/2023) seeking a stay on the liquidation order dated 26.07.2023 and permission to deposit the outstanding amount of Rs. 9,37,50,000/-. The Resolution Plan submitted by the Appellant had been approved earlier, but he failed to deposit the full amount within the stipulated time, leading to the liquidation order.

## Facts

Mr. C. Sivasami, the Appellant, is the Resolution Applicant/Promoter of M/s. Topknit Processing Mills Pvt. Ltd., the Corporate Debtor. CIRP proceedings were initiated against the Corporate Debtor via an order dated 2019-11-21. The Resolution Plan submitted by the Appellant was approved by the NCLT, Chennai, on 2022-06-20, subject to the condition that the Appellant deposits Rs. 10,11,00,000. The Appellant had already deposited Rs. 1,03,25,000 and a security deposit of Rs. 46,25,000. However, he failed to deposit the balance amount by the stipulated date of 2022-06-20. Consequently, the Respondent filed an application (IA No. 429/2023) seeking liquidation of the Corporate Debtor under Section 33(3) of the I&B Code. The Appellant claimed unavoidable circumstances

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority's order rejecting the Appellant's application to deposit the …

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

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the Adjudicating Authority's decision was based on the

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation is that while the Adjudicating Authority has the power to

…

**Application:** In this case, the court applied the ratio by considering the consent of the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Sharad Kumar…; Jatindranat…
- **Appellants:** C. Siva…
- **Respondents:** M/s. Topknit…; A.R.Ramasubramania…

## Timeline

- **2019-11-21 — CIRP Init…**: CIRP proceedings initiated against M/s.…
- **2022-06-20 — Resolution Plan…**: Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. C. Sivasami approved by NCLT, Chennai, subject to…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 60(5) — Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-60)

---

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/c-sivasami-vs-ar-ramasubramania-raja-ors-e71437af