Averda Waste Management India Private ... vs Liberium Global Resources ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 830 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority's order admitting a Section 9 petition is set aside where the respondent-appellant was denied a fair opportunity to file its reply, and the matter is remanded so that the appellant may raise all available pleas, including maintainability of the petition, within the time fixed. Adjournments not caused by force majeure or vis major are not to be sought by a party before the Adjudicating Authority, and the Authority should endeavour to dispose of the matter promptly, preferably within six weeks of the close of pleadings.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Averda Waste Management India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Liberium Global Resources Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent(s)
Present: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Krishnendu Datta (Sr. Adv.), Mr Saket Sikri, Mr Divyam Agarwal, Mr Aniket Aggarwal, Mr Arjun Narang, Mr Akshat Trivedi, Mr Ajay Pal Kullar, Mr Yash Tandon, Advocates.
For Respondent(s) : Mr Abhijit Sinha (Senior Advocate), Mr Sandeep Bajaj, Mr Prateek Mishra, Ms Praijat, Mr Arjun Sidhant for R1, Mr Rachit Ranjan (IRP) Advocates.
ORDER
(HYBRID MODE)
08.07.2025: Challenging the order admitting a company petition under
Section 9 IBC, dated 09.05.2025, the Respondent before the Adjudicating
Authority has preferred the aforesaid appeal.
2. Heard both sides. The Appellant's contention is grounded on its
allegation that it did not have a fair opportunity to make its case before the
Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant has not filed the reply on merits, since
it took up the plea as to the maintainability of the company petition filed
under Section 9 IBC. There are certain ancillary allegations, frills, and
embroideries attached to this submission, but we do not propose to concern
ourselves overly with them. Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted 2
briefly on the merit of some of the allegations made by the Appellant, but
added that his client is not averse to granting the Appellant an opportunity of
being heard fairly. However, he added that the said opportunity should not be
allowed to be exploited for dragging the proceedings and defeating the rights
of the Respondent.
3. Given the nature of the submission made before us, we have little
hesitation in setting aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated
09.05.2025 in Company Petition 830/2025 and remanding the matter back
to the Tribunal. The appellant is entitled to file its reply raising all pleas
available to it in law, including the plea as to the maintainability of the
company petition, on or before 22.07.2025.
4. Except for force majeure or Vis major events intervening, neither side,
more specifically the appellant, shall seek by adjournments before the
Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority is required to explore
possibilities of disposing of the matter as early as possible, preferably within
six weeks after the completion of pleadings.
5. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[Justice N Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) MT/AB
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free