Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Millennium Education Foundation vs Educomp Infrastructure & School ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal3 August 2022Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

An order passed by the Adjudicating Authority without notice to a party who was not before it does not bind that party; the party is therefore entitled to raise, in its reply to the application, any plea going to the maintainability of the application, and the earlier order shall not preclude the Adjudicating Authority from deciding those issues.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHIComp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 901 of 2022In the matter of:

Millennium Education Foundation ....Appellant Vs.

Educomp Infrastructure & School Management Ltd. & ...Respondents Anr. For Appellant: Appeared but presence not marked. For Respondents:

ORDER

03.08.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 03.06.2022 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Bench-V,

New Delhi, by which order the Adjudicating Authority has issued notice to the

Appellant, the Corporate Debtor to file a Reply.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the issue as to whether

Chairman of the Monitoring Committee is competent to initiate proceeding

under Section 9 of the IBC need to be addressed by the Corporate Debtor in

its Reply and since the order dated 03.06.2022 was passed without any notice

to the Appellant the same shall not come in the way when issue is adjudicated.

4. We are of the view that since the order dated 03.06.2022 was passed

when the Appellant was not before the Adjudicating Authority, it shall be open

for the Appellant to take such plea regarding maintainability of the Application 2

in the Reply as advised and the order dated 03.06.2022 shall not come in the

way of the Appellant when the issues are decided by the Adjudicating

Authority.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant prays for seven days' time to file a

Reply. Let a Reply be filed by the Appellant within seven days from today.

6. With these observations, the Appeal is disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy] Member (Judicial)

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 901 of 2022

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