Miss Lucy
← All judgments

M/S. Shah Paper Mills Ltd vs Ms. Shree Rama Newsprint & Papers Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal12 April 2023Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Adjudicating Authority, having been directed by an appellate order to pass an order on a Section 9 application within a fixed period, cannot reopen the merits of that application for a fresh hearing before a different bench where the appellate order has directed only admission and where the earlier liberty was confined to the consideration of subsequent events; any subsequent-events material is to be considered only in relation to the pending interlocutory application and does not warrant a fresh hearing of the principal application, which remains governed by the appellate direction.

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. 438 of 2023&I.A. No. 1454 of 2023IN THE MATTER OF:

Shah Paper Mills Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Shree Rama News Prints and Papers Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Shivek Trehan, Ms. Namami Jain, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Karan Valecha, Mr. Ravi Pahwa, Mr. Saikat Sarkar, Advocates

ORDER

12.04.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Learned

Counsel for the Respondent.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 15.02.2023 in CP(IB)

No. 251/9/NCLT/AHM/2019. Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 1088 of 2022 was

decided by this Tribunal vide Order dated 21st December, 2022 where the

Appeal was allowed and following order passed in paragraph 24:

"24. In the result, we are thus of the view that ground

for rejection of the Application under Section 9 of IBC

was erroneous. Appeal is allowed. We set aside the

Impugned Order dated 20.07.2022 and direct the

Adjudicating Authority to pass an order of admission

of Section 9 Application under IBC within a period of -2-

one month from the date when the copy of this order is

produced and to take further steps in accordance with

the law. No order as to costs."

3. In pursuance of the Order of this Tribunal, CP(IB) No.

251/9/NCLT/AHM/2019 was again being considered by the Adjudicating

Authority and the Orders were reserved on 31st January, 2023. I.A. No.

123/2023 also filed by the Corporate Debtor was heard. The Corporate Debtor

filed an I.A. in Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 1088 of 2022 being I.A. No. 462

of 2023 where this Tribunal passed an Order on 03.02.2023 in which in

paragraph 4, following order was passed:

"4. When the Adjudicating Authority has already

reserved the orders, we see no reason to entertain this

application or pass any direction. However, it is made

clear that it is always open for the Adjudicating

Authority to consider any subsequent events after

passing of order of this Tribunal. With these

observations, we dispose of this application."

4. It appears that order dated 03.02.2023 was placed before the

Adjudicating Authority and the Adjudicating Authority has now passed

impugned order dated 15.02.2023. The order passed on 15.02.2023 in

paragraph 5 following is stated:

"5. It appears to us that Hon'ble NCLAT allowed the

Corporate Debtor to place before us new material

relating to subsequent events and this Adjudicating

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 438 of 2023 -3-

Authority to consider the same. In view of this, now we

have to re-open the main application i.e. CP(I.B) No.

251 of 2019 for hearing afresh not only relating to

subsequent events but earlier matter was heard by the

Special Bench and this has to be now heard by

Regular Bench. Hence, we direct the Court Officer to

place CP(IB) No. 251 of 2019 and all other pending IAs

thereto for consideration before Regular Bench on

06.03.2023."

5. From the order of the Adjudicating Authority, it appears that I.A. No.

123 of 2023 was heard and orders were reserved on 31st January, 2023 and

now by impugned order after de-reserving the court has directed for hearing

afresh.

6. From the Order it does appear that Bench which earlier heard is no

longer available hence matter has been directed to be heard by a Regular

Bench. We see no infirmity in the said direction. However, we make it clear

that our direction above on 03.02.2023 as quoted above was only to the effect

"It is always open for the Adjudicating Authority to consider any subsequent

events after passing order of this Tribunal". Meaning thereby, any event which

took place after 21.12.2022 could be taken note by the Adjudicating Authority

while passing appropriate order. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits

that subsequent events were already placed by I.A. No. 123 of 2023.

7. We are of the view that Order dated 15.02.2023 has to be confined to

I.A. No. 123 of 2023 filed by the Corporate Debtor only and there is no

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 438 of 2023 -4-

occasion for any fresh hearing in CP (IB) No. 251 of 2019 which is covered by

our direction issued on 21.12.2022.

With this clarification, we dispose of this Appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Basant/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 438 of 2023

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