Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction ... vs Samay Electronics Pvt Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 807 of 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
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