Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Deepika Bhugra Prasad Erstwhile ... vs Rabindra Kumar Mintri Liquidator ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal12 January 2024

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal, having called upon a party to explain non-compliance and to show cause, should await that explanation before taking any step that may be perceived as an adverse action against the party; a direction to forward the impugned order to the regulator (IBBI) issued before the explanation is tendered is set aside as premature and apprehension-inducing.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 88 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: Deepika Bhugra Prasad Erstwhile Resolution Professional International Trenching Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Rabindra Kumar Mintri Liquidator International Trenching Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Lokesh Malik, Mr. Amar Vivek, Mr. Aknand Pratap Singh and Ms. Deepika Bhugna, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Rachit Ranjan, Advocate for R-1.

ORAL ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

[Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain]

12.01.2024 : This Appeal is directed against the Order dated

12.12.2023, by which the Tribunal has asked the erstwhile Resolution

Professional to submit a Compliance Report along with an explanation as to

why the Order dated 04.10.2023 was not complied with.

Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the explanation has been

given in compliance of the Impugned Order but the Appellant is aggrieved

against the last line of the Impugned Order by which the Tribunal has sent

the copy of the Order dated 12.12.2023 to the IBBI.

It is submitted that on the one hand the Tribunal has sought the

explanation and before the explanation could have been offered by the

Appellant, the Tribunal has directed the registry to send the copy of the order

dated 12.12.2023 to the IBBI.

We have heard Counsel for the Parties.

The Tribunal has sought the explanation of the Appellant as to why she

did not submit the documents to the Liquidator in terms of the order dated

04.10.2023 but at the same time directed the Registry to send the copy of the

order dated 12.12.2023 to the IBBI.

In our considered opinion, the Tribunal should have awaited the

explanation of the Appellant before issuing the direction to the registry to

forward the copy of the order dated 12.12.2023 to the IBBI which might have

been sent for information but it has made the Appellant apprehensive of any

adverse action against her before the explanation is tendered by her to the

Tribunal.

In such facts and circumstances, we allow this appeal partly only for

the purpose of setting aside the part of the order i.e. "the Registry is directed

to forward a copy of this Order to the IBBI". Which is hereby set aside

accordingly.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) himanshu/rr

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 88 of 2024 2 of 2

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