Mr. Dhairya Miteshbhai Shah Suspended ... vs Mr. Keshav Kaneja Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 44 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an adjudicating authority issues notice on a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, granting the corporate debtor seven days from receipt of notice to file its reply, it is a breach of natural justice to admit the application before that seven-day period has expired, even where the adjudicating authority has recorded that the notice was received by the corporate debtor's director on an earlier date and that service was complete. An order admitting the application in such circumstances is liable to be set aside on that ground alone.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Dhairya Miteshbhai Shah, Suspended Director of Mindra EV Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Keshav Kaneja, RP of Gensol EV Lease Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Dutta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karan Valecha, Mr. Jaimin R. Dave, Ms. Manvi Damle, Ms. Shivangi Khandelwal and Ms. Niharika Sharma, Advocates.
For Respondents : Ms. Rishi Singhal, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. C. Jalaj Srivastava, Advocates for R-2/IRP.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
09.01.2026 : Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned
counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 19.12.2025 by which
order Section 9 application filed by the operational creditor has been
admitted.
3. Counsel for the appellant submits that the order has been passed in
violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that the notices were
issued on 09.12.2025 giving 7 days' time to the corporate debtor after service
of notice and order was passed even before expiry of 7 days.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that appellant did not
appear before the adjudicating authority, hence adjudicating authority
proceeded to pass the order.
5. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
6. By order dated 09.12.2025, notices were issued, which order is as
follows:
"This is an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "IBC, 2016") read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "IB (AAA) Rules, 2016") for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Respondent, to appoint Interim Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred to as "IRP") and declare the moratorium for having defaulted in payment of operational debt.
It is stated by the Applicant that advance copy of the Application in terms of Rule 6 of IB (AAA) Rules, 2016 has already been served on the Respondent. Let notice be issued to the Respondent by the Registry, returnable by next date. The Applicant is directed to collect the notice from the Registry within three days and serve upon the Respondent along with copy of this order through Registered Ad post / Speed-post/ Dasti mode as well as on the registered email ID of the Respondent registered with the MCA within seven days.
The Respondent may file reply, if any, within seven days from the date of receipt of notice. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing, thereafter. Proof of Service be filed by way of an affidavit before the next date of hearing.
List the matter on 19.12.2025."
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 44 of 2026 2 of 3
7. In paragraph 8 of the impugned order, adjudicating authority itself has
noticed that the notice was received on 13.12.2025. Paragraph 8 of the
impugned order is as follows:
"8. On issuance of the notice, a service report was filed by the Operational Creditor on 17.12.2025 vide Inward No. D-5443; a notice was received by the director of Corporate Debtor on 13.12.2025 with acknowledgement; notice was also served through e- mode on 17.12.2025. Hence, Service was considered sufficient and complete through e-mode and Dasti Mode u/Rule 23 of IB (AAA) Rules, 2016. However, despite service, no appearance or reply filed by Corporate Debtor; sufficient opportunity provided. Hence, right to file reply is closed and proceeded ex- parte."
8. When the notice was received according to the adjudicating authority
itself on 13.12.2025 and 7 days' time was granted to file the reply, we fail to
see any reason for admitting the Section 9 application on 19.12.2025 before
expiry of 7 days. Thus, the order impugned deserves to be set aside on this
ground alone.
9. In result, appeal is allowed. Order dated 19.12.2025 is set aside.
Appellant is allowed a week's time to file the reply before the adjudicating
authority. Adjudicating authority may proceed to pass fresh order in
accordance with law.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 44 of 2026 3 of 3
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