# In the matter of Vistara ITCL (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Mr. Dinkar Venkata Subramanian & Ors. CA(AT)(Ins)No. 703 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-08-24. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00152. The case involves an appeal against the dismissal of I.A. 62 of 2020 in CP (IB) No.…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 24 Aug 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00152
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/vistara-itcl-india-ltd-ors-vs-mr-dinkar-venkata-subramanian-ors-ca-696d3c75

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against the dismissal of I.A. 62 of 2020 in CP (IB) No. 42/Chd./Hry./2017 by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Chandigarh Bench. The application was filed against the Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor 'M/s. Amtek Auto Limited' under Section 60(5) of the I&B Code, seeking inclusion of Appellant No. 1 in the Committee of Creditors as a secured financial creditor. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the I.A. while approving the resolution plan of Duccan Value Investor (DVI). The Appellants claim that their claim as a secured financial creditor was rejected by the Resolution Professional in 2017 and that they had represented to the Resolution Professional to preserve the

…

## Facts

M/s. Vistara ITCL (India) Ltd. & Ors. filed an application (I.A. 62 of 2020) seeking to be included in the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of M/s. Amtek Auto Limited as secured financial creditors. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT Chandigarh) dismissed the application while approving the resolution plan of Duccan Value Investor (DVI). The Appellants' claim as secured financial creditors was initially rejected by the Resolution Professional (RP) in 2017. The Appellants contended that they did not challenge the rejection because they believed their interests would be protected under the Liberty House Group (LHG) resolution plan. The LHG plan, however, was not fulfilled. The CoC was reconstituted, and they appealed the Adjudicating Authority's decision to reject a fresh

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Appellants' claim as a secured financial creditor can be admitted despite the rejection …

**Ratio:** A party cannot raise the same issue again after a significant lapse of time, especially

…

**Reasoning:** The Adjudicating Authority had already rejected the Appellants' claim as a secured

…

**Interpretation:** The principle of res judicata or estoppel applies, preventing parties from

…

**Application:** The Appellants' claim was rejected in 2017 and not challenged. Therefore, they

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** JusticeBansi Lal…; Jarat Kuma…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** M/s. Vistara ITCL…
- **Respondents:** M/s. Amtek Auto…; DinkarVenkatasubra…

## Timeline

- **2017-01-01 — Rejection o…**: The Resolution Professional rejected the Appellants' claim as a secured financial…
- **2017-01-01 — LHG Resoluti…**: The Liberty House Group (LHG) submitted a resolution plan that was supposed to protect…

## 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/vistara-itcl-india-ltd-ors-vs-mr-dinkar-venkata-subramanian-ors-ca-696d3c75