Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Mr. Vivek Shukla vs Mr. Mohan Lal Jain

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal19 May 2022

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an adjudicating authority passes an order without taking cognizance of a party's filed reply or considering the pleas raised in it, that order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside, and the matter is to be remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration after hearing both parties.

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. 537 of 2022

IN THE MATTER OF: Vivek Shukla ...Appellant

Versus Mohan Lal Jain (Liquidator, SBS Transpole Logistics Pvt. Ltd.) ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Sameer Jain, Mr. Anurag Pandey and Ms. Anu Sura, Advocates.

For Respondent: Mr. IPS Oberoi, Advocate for Liquidator.

ORDER

(Virtual Mode)

19.05.2022: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as Shri IPS

Oberoi, learned counsel appearing for the Liquidator. This Appeal has been filed

against order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National

Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench-II in CA No. 1554/2019.

2. The application CA No. 1554/2019 was filed by the then Resolution

Professional under Section 19(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

(for short 'I&B Code'). In CA No. 1554/2019 a reply was also filed by the

Appellant dated 02.01.2020, copy of which has also been brought on the record

at Annexure A-5 of the Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that on the day when the order

was passed no one can be connected on behalf of the Appellant and the

Cont'd.../ 2

Adjudicating Authority has directed for taking steps for filing of prosecution

under appropriate section under Chapter VII of the I&B Code. It is submitted

that neither the Reply has been considered nor the Appellant can appear on the

date fixed.

4. Learned counsel for the Liquidator submits that the Adjudicating

Authority was apprised of the fact that reply has been filed by the Appellant.

5. Be that as it may. Perusal of the order shows that the Adjudicating

Authority has neither taken cognizance of the reply of the Appellant nor it has

considered any of the pleas taken in the Reply. We are of the view that the ends

of justice be served in remitting back the matter again to the Adjudicating

Authority to decide CA No. 1554/2019 afresh after hearing both the parties. In

result, we set aside the order dated 31.03.2022 in CA No. 1554/2019. The CA

is revived before the Adjudicating Authority to be considered afresh in

accordance with law. With these observations, Appeal is disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 537 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