Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Kitply Industries Limited vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal22 July 2024Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Adjudicating Authority, when granting a corporate debtor time to file its reply at the first hearing after notice, is not required to impose costs; a direction imposing costs in that situation is set aside.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1374 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: Kitply Industries Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Kanodia, Ms. Anjali Singh, Mr. Pragyan Mishra, Ms. Radha Gupta, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

22.07.2024: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and Shri Sanjiv

Sen, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent. This Appeal has

been filed against order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Adjudicating

Authority by which the Adjudicating Authority while granting 10 days' time to

file Reply has imposed cost of Rs.25,000/-.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the Applicant-

Financial Creditor has not filed the Business Transfer Agreement dated

16.08.2009 (19) along with the Application.

3. Shri Sanjiv Sen, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the

objections which was raised by the Appellant were all frivolous objections and

advance notice was served still they did not file the Reply.

Cont'd.../ 2

4. Be that as it may. It is always open for the Corporate Debtor to raise

objection of non-filing of document in reply which is to be filed. It is further

submitted that 11.07.2024 was the first date after notice, when impugned

order imposing cost was passed. We are of the view that on the first day, the

Adjudicating Authority while granting time to file reply, it was not necessary

to impose cost of Rs.25,000/-. We, thus, while retaining the rest of the order,

delete cost of Rs.25,000/-.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the time granted by the

Adjudicating Authority for filing Reply of 10 days has already expired,

however, next date in the matter is fixed on 25.07.2024.

6. We are of the view that Appellant may file Reply before the date fixed.

With these observations, the Appeal is disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1374 of 2024

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