Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction ... vs Samay Electronics Pvt Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal22 September 2020

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where the two Members of a Bench of the Adjudicating Authority have divergent views on the issues and have disposed of the same application in conflicting ways, the matter must be dealt with under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013: the Bench's disagreement is to be referred to the President of the Tribunal for hearing by a third Member, and the application is to be decided in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the Members who heard the case, including the Member before whom it is so placed.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 807 of 2020IN THE MATTER OF:

JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Samay Electronics Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Sonal Jain and Mr. Ishkaran Singh Bhandari, Advocates For Respondent:

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

22.09.2020: Conflicting orders have been passed by the two Members comprising

the Bench of Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad

Bench, Court I. While in terms of order pronounced on 26th February, 2020, the

Technical Member has, after recording its reasons directed admission of application

under Section 7 of the I&B Code filed by the Appellant - 'JM Financial Asset

Reconstruction Company Ltd.' (Financial Creditor), the dissenting view expressed by

the Member Judicial found the application under Section 7 filed by the Appellant as

being hit by limitation entailing its rejection.

Mr. Sonal Jain, learned counsel representing the Appellant submits that

mandate of Section 419(5) of the Companies Act was not followed as the two

Members of the Bench had conflicting views on the vital issues resulting in disposal

of application in two different ways viz. one allowing admission of application under

Section 7 and other rejecting it. He is accordingly beseeching this Appellate Tribunal -2-

to direct the Adjudicating Authority to follow the mandate of Section 419(5) of the

Companies Act.

After hearing learned counsel for the Appellant, we deem it appropriate to

dispose of this appeal with direction to the same Bench of the Adjudicating

Authority, which passed two conflicting orders, to make a reference to Hon'ble

President, NCLT, if not already made, in terms of Section 419(5) of the Companies

Act, 2013, for hearing on the issues and points on which the two Members of the

Bench had divergent view in the split verdict so that the matter is placed before a

third Member for hearing and the Company Petition is decided in accordance with

the opinion of the majority of the Members who heard the case including the member

before whom it is placed. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Copy of this order be sent to the Bench of the Adjudicating Authority (National

Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench, Court-I as also to Hon'ble President,

NCLT, New Delhi for information and compliance.

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Acting Chairperson

[Justice Venugopal M.] Member (Judicial)

[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical) am/gc

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 807 of 2020

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