Darshan Group vs Omkar Realtors & Developers Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1550 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal may set aside an order rejecting a Section 9 application as not maintainable, where that rejection was made in the absence of the applicant and without a hearing on its merits, and remit the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the application on its merits, leaving open all questions including whether a pre-existing dispute exists.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Darshan Group ...Appellant Versus Omkar Realtors & Developers Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kunal Cheema, Mr. Apoorv Shukla, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Aditya Kumar, Advocate
ORDER
20.03.2023: The present appeal has been preferred under Section 61 of
the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (herein after referred to as 'Code')
against an order dated 10.11.2022 passed by Ld. National Company Law
Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-IV in CP. (IB)/ 477(MB)/2021. By the said
order the application filed under Section 9 of the Code, on behalf of the
Appellant was rejected as not maintainable. From the order it is reflected that
on the date when the case was taken up there was none appearance on behalf
of the Applicant/Appellant. Even in absence of a party if court is satisfied that
an application is not maintainable the court is having jurisdiction to pass order
but we are of the opinion that for just decision in the matter it would be
appropriate to remit the matter to the NCLT to pass the order on merit of the
application which was filed by the Applicant/Appellant. -2-
We are not recording any opinion as to whether there was pre-existing
dispute or not. All those points are left open to be examined by the NCLT. With
above observation the appeal stands disposed of. In view of the matter it is
appropriate to set aside the order and remit back the matter to the NCLT for
passing appropriate order in accordance with law. This order was passed after
hearing Mr. Kunal Cheema, Ld. Counsel along with Mr. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, Ld.
Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Aditya Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Sole
Respondent.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
sr/gc
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1550 of 2022
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