In the matter of Maa Durga Commotrade Private Limited

An application filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, r /w. Rule 1 1 of the NCLT Rules, 2016; -And- In the Matter ofi MAA Durga Commotrade Private Limited, Flat No-302, Neelakanthapartment, College Square, Malgodown, Cuftack, Odisha-750 003; ..,Applicant -Yersus- JM Financial Asset Reconstrrrction Company Limited, 8'r' F'loor, I(ankaria *100 Estate, 6, Little Russel Street, I(olkata 011; ",.Responde rrt -f;o*pany JM Financial Asset Reconstru.tior, Linrited, 8'r' Floor, I(ankaria Estate, 6, Little Russel Street, Kolkata *700 071; ...Financial Creditor -Yersus- MAA Durga Commotrade Private Lirnited, Flat No-302, Neelakanthapartment, College Square, Malgodown, Cuttack, Odisha-75O 003. ...Corporate Debtor

Appearances: For the Applicant (s) Mr. S. I(. Acharya, Adv. Mr. S. Pholgu, Adv. Mr. S. Agarwal, Adv. (s) For the Respondent Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Swayamjit Rout, Adv. Mr. S. S. Pradhan, Adv. Ms. J. Mohanty, Adv. Ms. G. Nayak, Adv. Order reserved ort 21.08.2023 Order lrronounced tn: 25.09,2023

IN TI.IE NATIONAL COMPANY LAWTRIBUNAL CUTTACI( BENCH IA (IB) No.253/CB/2023 -In- CP. (rB) No. 3{)/CB/2022 t In res: MAA Durga Commotrade Private Limited vs. JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limitcd vs. Coram: Shri P. Mohan Raj Member (Judicial) Shri l(aushalendra I(umar Singh Member (Technical) 9RP-.ER Per P, Mohan Raj, Member (Iudicial) 1. This is an application filed under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules 2016 to recail tlre order dated 07.08.2023 passed in C.P.No.30/CB/2022 reserving the matter for ordels and receive the additional objection,/pleadings. 2. The main C.P.No.30/CB/2A22 rs filed under section 7 of IBC 2016 for an initiation of CIRP against the applicant herein/corporate rlebtor. Alter hearing both sides the petition was reserved for final orders on 07.08.2023. The applicant filed this interlocutory appltcation on 16.08.2023 to reopen the case, receive additional pleading/ objections and rehear the matter. The only point to be dccide:cl here is whether a party could move an application after the final arguments in the case were heard and the case was reserved for orders. The position of law in this regard clearly laid down by the Apex court in Arjun Singh vs Mohindra I(umar & Ors on 13 Decenrber,196S- 1964 AIR 993, 1964 SCR (5) 946: In the present context when once the hearing starts, tlte Code contemplates only two stages in the triai of the ruit: (1) whcrc thc hearing is adjourned or (2) u,here the hearing is completed. {4/here the hearing is completed, the parties ltave no .further rights or prittileges in the matter and it is only,.for the convenience of the Court that O.XX R.l permits, judgrnent to be delivered afier an interual ajter the hearing is completed. It would, therc.fore, follow that afier the stage conternplated by O, IX, ll.7 is passerJ the next stage is only the passing of a decree which on tlrc terrns of O.IX R.6 tlte C'our"t is competent to pass. And then.follows the remady of th.e party to have thot decree set aside by application unde r O.IX R. 13, There is tlrus no hiatus bettueen the tu'o stages o.f' resenttrlion o.l' j.udgment and pronouncing the judgntent so as to make it necessary

IN TI IE NATIONAI. CIOMPANY LAW TRIBUI'IAL CUTTACI( BENCI-I iA (IB) No. 253 / CB / 2023 -In- CP. (IB) No. 30 / CB / 2022 In res: MAA Durga Commotrade Private Limited vs. JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited vs. for the Court to offord to the pat'ty the remedy of getting orders passed on llte lines oJ'O,IX R.7, In the supra citation it is made clear that there is no hiatus between the date on which the matter is reserved for c,rrders and the date of pronouncement of orders. 3. The supra position of 1aw is reiterated by the Rajasthan High Court in Rajasthan Financial Corporation vs Pukhraj Jainand C)rs. on}4October, 2000 AIR 2001 Raj 71, 2001 (1) Wt.C 308, 2001 (1) WLN 529 as followsl "The qruestion is not as to under which ltrovision the application is made but the question is as to whether aJter the arguruents are heard and the case is closed for judgment, any application under any provision could be moved till the judgment is proni;unced. : Supreme Coufi has clearly held that, there is no hiotus betwcerL thc two stages of reseruation of judgnterut anc{ pr'onoutxccment of judgment.

If there is no stage in between two and it is onlj, Jbr thr: convenience of the Court that pronouruceftrcnt of tlte judgment may be deferred, it is clear that no application could be moved aiter the ctrgumelxts were heard and the case was closed .for judgnent, Moreouer, the distinction sought to be made on the basis of absertce of the word 'stage' in Order 9, Rule 7, CPC is ctlso not real. Since the Supreme Court has categorically decided that there is no hia.lus between the two stages of resentation of judgment and pronouncement ofjudgrnent it cannot tse said that there can he ar1, stage in between the closure of the cose for jt*{grnent arid thc proli ouncerutent oJ' the judgment itself, Further in a similar situation the NCLT-Delhi Bench in SSP Private Lirnited vs Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited I.A.No.6290/ND / 2022 rn IB/ 53'2/ 2022 dated 28.03.2023 held in para 5 as foliows: It is a settled law that once the judgement has been resen'ed in ruatte r, any subsequent pleadings in the matter, bascd ort facts"rvhich ^vverc in existence earlier also at the time off;ling the reply as v,ell at the time of argutnetxts, cannot be ]N THE NATIONAL CO]VIPANY LAW TRTBUNAL CUTTACI( BENCFI IA (lB) N o. 253 / CB / 2023 -Irr- CP.

(IJJ) N o. 30 / CI) / 2022 In res: MAA Durga Commotrade Privare Limited vs. JIvI Financial Asset Reconstruction Compar.ry Limited vs. entertained b, this Adjudicating Authority ancl there.fore in no way can be considered by this A.djudicating Auth.ority in pronctuncing the judgement already reserved in the captioned C o m 7t a n'-,- A p pl i c at i o n. 5. In vievr of this clear position of settled law, no lurther d.iscr,tssions in fact necessary. There rs no scope to entertain any application fiom the parties a{ter the mattel is reserve( for orders. In these circumstances, this application is DISN{ISSED. 6. Registry is directed to send e-mail copies of the order forth-with to allthe party's concern. 7. Certrftedcopy of'this order may be issued, if applied [or, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. 8. File be.consigned.to records. PAN DIAN. Dleitally sisned by PAIIDTAN 3d_ MOHAN RAJ MOHAN RAJ Date:2023.0e.2s 14:'r6:25 +0s'30' I(aushalen&alKuuar ingh P. l\{ohan Itai S Member (Technical) Mr:rr:her (Judicial) Signed on this, the 25't' day of Septernber, 2023.

I{aushal_ P.S

Pag,e 4 c,f 4