ORDER :

1. The Appellant who claimed to be a ‘Financial Creditor’ submits that the cranes have been hypothecated in its name. The grievance of the Appellant is that the ‘Resolution Professional’ wanted to take over the hypothecated goods i.e. the four cranes, against which he had moved before this Appellate Tribunal, which had not been accepted.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent referred to some order passed by the Bombay High Court. However, we are not inclined to decide the claim and counter claim made by the parties for the reasons below.

3. The Appellant earlier moved before this Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 232 of 2018 and challenged the order dated 2nd April, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the Appellant against the decision of the ‘Resolution Professional’ was not entertained. This Appellate Tribunal by order dated 22nd February, 2019 passed the following orders:

“22.02.2019 The appellant, who claims to be ‘Operational Creditor’, has challenged the order dated 2nd April, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (N