Mrs Sindhuja Mishra vs Atul Mittal Resolution Professional Of ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1024 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellant has adequate recourse under Rule 49(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, to seek recall or setting aside of an order passed ex parte, before the Adjudicating Authority, and an appeal against such an order is therefore not the appropriate remedy on the ground that the Appellant was not heard.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Mrs. Sindhuja Mishra ...Appellant
Versus
Atul Mittal ...Respondents Resolution Professional of IIHT Systems Ltd.
Present: For Appellant: Advocate Gaurav Mitra, Advocate Rishi Sood, Advocate Shresth Garg For Respondent:
ORDER
01.08.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned
Counsel appearing for the Resolution Professional.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 14th July, 2023
passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Court III on an
Application filed under Section 66(1) of the Code.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Order has been
passed without hearing the Appellant. It is submitted that order is ex-parte to
the Appellant and deserves to be set aside on this ground alone.
4. We are of the view that Appellant has adequate recourse under NCLT
Rules 49(2) to file an application.
-2-
5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that he may be permitted to
withdraw this Appeal with liberty to file an application under Rule 49(2) of
NCLT Rules, 2016.
6. We permit the Appellant to withdraw this Appeal with liberty to file an
Application before the Adjudicating Authority in view of the aforesaid rules.
We have no doubt that Application which is to be filed under NCLT Rule 49(2)
before the Adjudicating Authority may expeditiously be heard.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
Basant/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1024/2023
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