# In the matter of Ravi Sankar Devarakonda Vs. Kesava Kolar Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 94 of 2021

> NCLAT judgment dated 2021-08-18. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLAT-00120. The case involves an appeal against an order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the Adjudicating…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 18 Aug 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLAT-00120
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/ravi-sankar-devarakonda-vs-kesava-kolar-company-appeal-0c45428f

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench) in a Contempt Petition No. 01/2020 in CP (IB) No. 90/BB/2017. The Appellant, the former Resolution Professional of Maxworth Realty India Ltd, filed the appeal because the Adjudicating Authority disposed of the contempt petition without initiating contempt proceedings, giving liberty to the Appellant to persuade the contemnors to pay the outstanding amount. The Appellant argued that the Respondent willfully defaulted on payments despite multiple directions from the Appellate Tribunal and the Adjudicating Authority.

## Facts

Mr. Ravi Sankar Devarakonda, the former Resolution Professional of Maxworth Realty India Ltd, filed an appeal against an order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench) in Contempt Petition No. 01/2020 in CP (IB) No. 90/BB/2017. The contempt petition was filed because the Respondent, Mr. Kesava Kolar, Managing Director of Maxworth Realty India Ltd, failed to comply with earlier orders directing the Corporate Debtor to pay the Resolution Professional's fees and CIRP expenses. The Adjudicating Authority disposed of the contempt petition without initiating contempt proceedings, giving the Appellant liberty to persuade the contemnors to pay the outstanding amount. The Appellant argued that the Respondent

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in disposing of the Contempt Petition No. 01/2020 in CP …

**Ratio:** The ratio is based on the principle that courts and tribunals have the power and duty to

…

**Reasoning:** The Appellate Tribunal reasoned that the Adjudicating Authority had passed earlier orders

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation is that the Adjudicating Authority should have considered

…

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

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** M. Venu…; Kanthi Na…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Ravi Sankar…
- **Respondents:** Maxworth Realty…; Kesava…

## Timeline

- **2017-01-01 — CP (IB) No. 90…**: Contempt Petition filed before…
- **2018-01-05 — Appointment…**: Appellant appointed as…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61(1) — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

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/ravi-sankar-devarakonda-vs-kesava-kolar-company-appeal-0c45428f