M/S. Shah Paper Mills Ltd vs Ms. Shree Rama Newsprint & Papers Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 438 of 2023
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
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