Kishorbhai Bhanjibhai Vachhani vs Central Bank Of India & Another

IN THE MATTER OF: Kishorbhai Bhanjibhai Vachhani ...Appellant

Versus

Central Bank of India & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Keith Varghese, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. Tushar Singh, Ms. Aastha Kaushik, Advocates for R-1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

16.07.2025: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned

counsel for the Central Bank of India. These two appeals have been filed

against order dated 03.01.2025 and 07.01.2025 by which order the

Adjudicating Authority directed that Appellant having not placed any proof

for deposit of cost of Rs.5000/-, reply filed by the Appellant has not been

taken into consideration and by subsequent order dated 07.01.2025, Section

7 application has been admitted.

2. When the Appeal was taken, submission of learned counsel for the

Appellant was recorded that cost of Rs.5000/- was deposited on 05.12.2024,

however, proof of payment of cost could not be filed. On 07.02.2025, this

Tribunal passed following order:

"O R D E R (Hybrid Mode)

07.02.2025: Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has deposited the cost of

Cont'd.../ 2

Rs.5000 on 05.12.2024, which was also noted in order dated 06.12.2024, however, the proof of payment of cost could not be filed, hence, the Court did not consider the reply of the Corporate Debtor and reserved the order. Subsequently, by order dated 07.01.2025, Section 7 application has been admitted. It is submitted that the reply was already on the record as well as the rejoinder affidavit. Submission needs scrutiny.

Issue notice. Requisites along with process fee be filed within three days. Let Reply be filed within two weeks.

List this appeal for admission/ disposal on 28.02.2025.

In the meantime, no further steps shall be taken in pursuance of the order dated 07.01.2025."

3. A reply has been filed by the Respondent.

4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record.

5. There is no dispute that cost imposed by the Adjudicating Authority by

order dated 25.11.2024 was to deposit the cost within 7 days of Rs.5000/- in

Prime Minister Relief Fund. Appellant's case is that the cost came to be

deposited on 05.12.2024 i.e. within the time allowed by the Court. Proof of

deposit of cost has also been brought on the record at page 120 of the paper

book, which is receipt of payment of Rs.5000/- in Prime Minster Relief Fund.

The cost having been deposited by the Appellant, we are of the view that Reply

filed by the Appellant ought to have been taken on record.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1248 & 1566 of 2023 3

6. The Adjudicating Authority has passed order dated 07.01.2025

admitting Section 7 application after rejecting the reply of the Appellant.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the

reply of the Appellant having been rejected to be taken on record, the order

admitting Section 7 application is a consequential order without considering

the reply. We are of the view that cost of Rs.5000/- having been already

deposited by the Appellant, the reply was required to be looked into by the

Adjudicating Authority. We, thus, set aside both orders dated 03.01.2025

and 07.01.2025 and revive Section 7 application filed by the Financial

Creditor for fresh consideration after considering reply of the Appellant.

Learned counsel for the Financial Creditor submits that rejoinder has already

been filed before the Adjudicating Authority. We make it clear that we have

not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Section 7 application and it is

for the Adjudicating Authority to take a decision after considering the reply

filed by the Appellant and the rejoinder, in accordance with law. With the

aforesaid, both the appeals are disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1248 & 1566 of 2023