M/S Se Transstadia Pvt. Ltd vs Bank Of Baroda
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 380 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority's failure to give reasons for allowing an amendment to a Section 7 application does not, by itself, warrant appellate interference where the amendment is tied to the date of NPA claimed in the original application and the Corporate Debtor has been granted liberty to raise all issues, including limitation, in its supplementary reply; the appellate court will decline to interfere in such circumstances, leaving the question of the date of default open for the Appellant to contest before the Adjudicating Authority.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
In the matter of: M/s. SE Transstadia Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant Vs. Bank of Baroda ...Respondent For Appellant Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aman Raj Gandhi, Mr. Vardaan Bajaj, Mr. Rajat Sinha, Mt. Ojasvi Sharma, Advocates For Respondent Mr. A.K. Mishra, Ms. Tanupriya Saraf, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
28.02.2024: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.01.2024 by which
IA No.37 of 2024 filed by the Applicant for amendment in Section 7 application
has been allowed and the liberty was granted to the Corporate Debtor to raise
all issues in supplementary reply.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the date of default
which was earlier mentioned was 02.06.2018 has been now amended as
29.09.2018. The Adjudicating Authority does not give any reason as to why
amendment is being allowed. He has also referred to the Application and the
list of dates and events and has pointed out to the Item No.18 as well where
the date of NPA was mentioned.
4. When we look into the table of amendment which was sought to be
allowed, in place of 02.06.2018 now amended date of default is 29.09.2018 2
which is in accord with the date of NPA as was mentioned in the original Form-
1 i.e. 31.12.2018. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that even date
of default is not acceptable and is not according to the RBI Circular.
5. We have considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
6. The amendment which has been allowed is amendment as per the date
of NPA claimed in the application under Section 7. It is true that there is no
reason given in the order of the Adjudicating Authority but we have looked
into the amendment proposed and amendment allowed and we are of the view
that it is not a fit case for the Appellate Court to exercise its jurisdiction to
interfere with the impugned order. Adjudicating Authority has already given
liberty to the Corporate Debtor to raise all issues, including the issue of
limitation. It shall be open for the Appellant to raise the question of date of
NPA and the date of default as well.
7. With the above liberty, the Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 380 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