Classic Marble Company Private Limited ... vs Mr. Premraj Ramratan Laddha Liquidator ...

-1-

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 2000 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Classic Marble Company Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Premraj Ramratan Laddha, Liquidator of Euro Ceramics Ltd. ...Respondent Present: For Appellant : Ms. Sonali Patade, Ms. Surekha Yadav, Advocates. For Respondent : ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

01.09.2026: This company appeal is being taken up upon a mentioning

being made by the Ld. Counsel for the parties.

2. In the company appeal the challenge given by the appellant is to the

impugned order of 28.08.2024, that has been passed by Ld. National

Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in IA No. 5341 of 2023 in CP (IB) No.

66/MB/2018. By virtue of this the appellant was directed to make the

payment of Rs.5,17,236/- to the Corporate Debtor.

3. It has been jointly stated by the Ld. Counsel for the parties, that as

against the same order there had been yet another company appeal, being

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 2215 of 2024 'Pink Rose Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

& Ors. vs. Premraj Ramratan Laddha & Ors.'. The said company appeal

has been decided by the coordinate bench vide its Judgment rendered on

13.02.2026. Since the issue involved in both the company appeals are

similar, both on facts and law and it's no one case that the instant company

appeal is not based upon the same footing of the Judgment rendered in the -2-

earlier appeal on 13.02.2026, in that eventuality this company appeal too

would stand allowed and remanded in terms of the Judgment dated

13.02.2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 2215 of 2024 and accordingly the

following orders were passed:

"4. It is only when notice is directed on any application or petition, the tribunal makes up its mind to invite an objection from the respondent. When it is omitted to be done, its consequences are larger than an ordinary procedural breach as it directly impacts the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Till notice is directed, or at least the respondent is required to respond to an application or petition by the tribunal, a respondent is entitled to hold a bonafide impression that his or its time to respond to an application or petition has not arisen. This precisely has resulted in this case, and necessarily the impugned order has denied the appellant a right to put forth its case.

5. An order has been passed. May be inadvertently. But given the consequence it has produced, it cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the Order dated 28.08.2024 passed in I.A.5341 of 2023, and remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority after affording the appellant an opportunity to defend I.A.5341 of 2023. We also direct the appellant to take notice of the said I.A., for this purpose. No costs."

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)

SA/rr

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 2000 of 2024