M/S Parkash Cotton Pressing Factory vs Allahbad Bank Nd Ors
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 137 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority, having dismissed an application as infructuous without deciding it on its merits, must decide that application on merits after hearing both parties; the appellate body will not itself determine the claim, and the decision of the Adjudicating Authority is set aside for that purpose.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 137 of 2024 & I.A. No. 436 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Parkash Cotton Pressing Factory ...Appellants Versus Allahabad Bank & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Aalok Jagga, Mr. APS Madaan and Ms. Pallavi Singh, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate. Mr. Iswar Mohapatra, Advocate.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
05.07.2024: This appeal has been filed against the order dated
06.12.2023 passed in IA No. 739 of 2019 which was filed by the appellant
praying for interest on the delayed payment received. The Adjudicating
Authority by impugned order has dismissed the application noticing that the
application has become infructuous in view of the order in I.A. No. 606 of 2018
which was filed by the same party for the amount outstanding as per the audit
report.
2. Shri Abhishek Anand, Advocate appearing for liquidator submits that the
appellant before receiving the payment of the amount directed by Adjudicating
Authority has submitted the undertaking (on page- 57 of the Reply) that on
payment of Rs. 6,95,24,683/-, he shall not claim any damages or
compensation or interest or any sought of claim arising out of the same.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Adjudicating Authority
need not bind the appellant. He further submits that the Adjudicating
Authority ought to have deliberated on the application in deciding the same on
merits instead of dismissing as infructuous.
4. Learned counsel for both the parties have raised various contentions in
support of their submissions. We are of the view that since the Adjudicating
Authority has not decided the application and dismissed it as infructuous it is
appropriate that the IA No. 739 of 2019 may be heard afresh and decided after
hearing both the parties. It is made clear that we are not expressing any
opinion on the claim of either of the parties.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)
harleen/NN
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 137 of 2024 & I.A. No. 436 of 2024 2 of 2
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