Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Kishan Lal Sharma vs Vikram Bajaj

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal31 July 2019

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The appellate tribunal modified the impugned order and disposed of the appeal by granting the appellant one final opportunity to file a reply-affidavit within a fixed period, failing which the Adjudicating Authority is to proceed on the available records after hearing the appellant. The court does not state any general legal principle beyond this procedural disposition on the facts before it.

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. 777 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF: Kishan Lal Sharma .....Appellant Vs. Vikram Bajaj ......Respondent

Present : For Appellant: Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Mr. Gaurav Rana, Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal, Advocates For Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate

O R D E R

31.07.2019 - The Appellant - erstwhile Director of 'Anil Special Steel

Industries Limited' has preferred this appeal against order dated 13th June, 2019

passed by the Adjudicating Authority ('National Company Law Tribunal'), Jaipur

whereby Interlocutory Application was filed by the Appellant to set-aside the ex-

parte order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 10th May, 2019 has been

rejected.

2. It appears that the Respondent moved before the Adjudicating Authority for

action u/s 45 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('I&B' Code, for short)

and the matter is pending for consideration.

....contd.

2

3. The Directors and another were noticed including the Appellant but

Appellant inspite of granting time failed to file reply-affidavit.

4. On 4th April, 2019, the Adjudicating Authority passed order imposing cost

of Rs. 5000/- on the Appellant to be paid in the 'Prime Minister National Relief

Fund'.

5. However, on 10th May, 2019 when the matter was taken up, the Appellant

was not presented before the Adjudicating Authority and failed to file any reply.

On 10th May, 2019, the Appellant's right to file reply was closed.

6. In this background, the Interlocutory Application was filed to set-aside the

order dated 10.05.2019 which was rejected by Adjudicating Authority on 13th

June, 2019.

7. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that Appellant was present on

10th May, 2019 along with the Counsel but the Counsel refused from appearance

and for the said reason, therefore, no reply could be filed.

8. It stated that application filed by 'Resolution Professional' for action u/s 45

of the 'I&B' Code is still pending for consideration.

9. Mr. Abhishek Anand, learned counsel appears on behalf of 'Resolution

Professional' accepts that no order has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority

on the application for action u/s 45 of the 'I&B' Code. ...contd. 3

10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we give one opportunity to the

Appellant to file reply-affidavit by 9th August, 2019. If such reply is filed, it will

be open to the 'Resolution Professional to file rejoinder within a week thereof.

However, if no reply is filed by the Appellant within the aforesaid period, the

Adjudicating Authority will proceed without reply on the basis of available records

after hearing the Appellant.

11. The impugned order stands modified to the extent above.

The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. No costs.

[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice A. I. S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)

ss/sk

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)No. 777 of 2019

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