# In the matter of Prashant Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vijaykumar V. Iyer CA(AT)(Ins)No. 513 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-06-05. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00241. The Appellant, M/s Prashant Properties Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the rejection of…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 5 Jun 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00241
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/prashant-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-vijaykumar-v-iyer-ca-0adccbd3

## Summary

### Background

The Appellant, M/s Prashant Properties Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the rejection of its claims by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claims because the Resolution Plan had already been approved on 08.04.2019 and it lacked the power to review its own decision. The rejection order was part of a composite order passed in CP(IB)No. 595/KB/2017 on 26.02.2020. The Appellant claimed entitlement to use the brand ‘Elegant' and 'Family of Marks' and sought intervention by filing CA No. 124/KB/2020 in CA(IB) No. 937/KB/2018, which was pending before the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority declined to draw an adverse conclusion based on the Resolution Professional's report.

## Facts

M/s Prashant Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) filed a claim which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT Kolkata) because a Resolution Plan had already been approved on 08.04.2019. The Appellant claimed entitlement to use the brand ‘Elegant' and 'Family of Marks', filing CA No. 124/KB/2020 in CA(IB) No. 937/KB/2018. The Adjudicating Authority declined to draw an adverse conclusion based on the Resolution Professional's report. The Appellant argued that a public notice dated 18.04.2019 was without jurisdiction and the right to use the trademark 'Elegant' had not passed to the Successful Resolution Applicant. The Respondent argued that the Adjudicating Authority became functus officio after the Resolution Plan's approval. The Appellant was an Operational

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the Appellant's claims based on the prior …

**Ratio:** Once a Resolution Plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, it attains finality and

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT reasoned that the approved Resolution Plan had attained finality and was beyond

…

**Interpretation:** This interpretation reinforces the finality of the resolution process under the

…

**Application:** The NCLAT applied this principle to the facts, holding that the Appellant's

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Bansi Lal…; Anant Bijay…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Prashant Propertie…
- **Respondents:** Vijaykumar…
- **Advocates:** Dhruba Muk…; Kumar Anura…; +1 more

## Timeline

- **2019-04-08 — Resolution Plan…**: The Adjudicating Authority…
- **2019-04-18 — Public Notice by…**: Resolution Professional issued a public notice…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 31(1) — Approval of resolution plan](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-31)

---

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/prashant-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-vijaykumar-v-iyer-ca-0adccbd3