H.S. Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd vs Inderjit Singh & Another
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 958 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An adjudicating authority, whether judicial or administrative, must hear a party affected by its decision before deciding the matter; where it reserves orders on applications without issuing notice to a party whose rights are affected (here, the successful resolution applicant), the resulting order offends the principle of audi alteram partem and is liable to be set aside, with the matter remanded for fresh hearing and a speaking order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: H S Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Inderjit Singh & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Pawan Kr. Mittal & Mr. Akhilesh L. Kamle, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Inderjit Singh, party in person
With
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 962 of 2022
IN THE MATTER OF: H S Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Duggal ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Pawan Kr. Mittal & Mr. Akhilesh L. Kamle, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Bhanu Gupta, Mr. Akshat Singh, Advocates
With
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 963 of 2022
IN THE MATTER OF: H S Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Sudha Rani Reddy ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Pawan Kr. Mittal & Mr. Akhilesh L. Kamle, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Pranjal Saran, Mr. Dacchita Shahi, Advocates 2
ORDER
Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain: (Oral)
18.05.2023: This order shall dispose of three appeals bearing CA (AT)
(Ins) No. 958 of 2022 'H S Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Inderjit Singh & Anr.',
CA (AT) (Ins) No. 962 of 2022 'H S Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rakesh
Duggal' & CA (AT) (Ins) No. 963 of 2022 'H S Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Sudha Rani Reddy'.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the first appeal i.e. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 958
of 2022 has arisen from the order dated 24.05.2022 passed in I.A. No. 609 of
2022, second appeal i.e. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 962 of 2022 has arisen from the
same order dated 24.05.2022 passed in I.A. No. 1009 of 2022 and the third
appeal i.e. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 963 of 2022 has also arisen from the same order
dated 24.05.2022 passed in I.A. No. 991 of 2022.
3. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the aforesaid three
applications bearing I.A. No. 609 of 2022, 1009 of 2022 and 991 of 2022 filed
by the respective Applicants came up for hearing on 13.04.2022 but without
issuing notice to the Appellant who is the Successful Resolution Applicant,
the order was reserved and later the same was pronounced on 24.05.2022.
4. It is thus submitted that the order dated 24.05.2022 is against the
principle of natural justice i.e. Audi Alteram Parterm.
5. In appeal No. 958 of 2022, Inderjit Singh has put in appearance as party
in person whereas in appeal No. 962 and 963 of 2022 Bhanu Gupta and
Pranjal Saran has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondents.
6. We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their
able assistance.
3
7. First of all, we would like to refer to the order dated 13.04.2022 by
which the orders in the above three applications were reserved. The order
passed in all the three applications is reproduced as under:-
"I.A. No. 609 of 2022
Heard. Reserved for orders.
The Ld. Counsel is directed to file written notes containing two pages each within two days.
I.A. No. 991 of 2022 Heard. Reserved for orders.
The Ld. Counsel is directed to file written notes containing two pages each within two days clearly indicated therein that the Applicant will complied with terms and conditions of the Resolution plan.
I.A. No. 1009 of 2022 Heard. Reserved for orders.
The Ld. Counsel is directed to file written notes containing two pages each within two days."
8. Counsel for the Respondents could not deny the fact that notice was
not issued to the Appellant by the Tribunal while reserving the orders in the
aforesaid three applications, therefore, it is well established that the
Respondent has been condemned without giving any opportunity of hearing
by the Tribunal. In such scenario, it would be relevant to refer to a decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'State of Orissa vs Binapani Dei,
1967 AIR 1269', in which it has been held that not only the judicial order but
also the administrative order should be passed by following the principle of
natural justice.
9. In the present case, opportunity of hearing is conspicuous by its
absence, therefore, it is a fit case in which the impugned order deserves to be 4
set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Tribunal to once
again hear the parties and take a decision in accordance with law by passing
a speaking order.
10. Consequently, all the three appeals are allowed and the order dated
24.05.2022 is set aside. The aforesaid three applications are remanded back
to the Tribunal to decide it again by passing a speaking order after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the Respondent, in all the aforesaid three
applications, much less the present Appellant who is the SRA.
11. The Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 02nd June,
2023.
12. The Tribunal is further directed to decide these applications as early as
possible but not beyond the end of the Month of July, 2023.
The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned
Tribunal.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)
Sheetal/RR
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