Nilkamal Limited vs Wholly Joy Products Pvt
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 781 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a Tribunal, after permitting additional material to be placed on record following the reservation of an order, pronounces an order that gives no reasons as to why that material was not found worth consideration, or how, if considered, it was irrelevant to the conclusion reached, the order is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh decision on the basis of the material on record, with the Tribunal required to record reasons addressing the additional material.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 781 of 2020 IN THE MATTER OF: Nilkamal Ltd. ....Appellant
Vs.
Wholly Joy Products Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent Present: For Appellant: Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Nitesh Jain, Advocate.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
24.05.2022: This Appeal is directed against the order dated 24.02.2020
passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Bench-II in IB-
1423/ND/2018.
Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that at one point of time the
arguments were heard, order was reserved on 07.02.2019 and pronouncement
of the order was fixed on 28.02.2019.
Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that at the time of
pronouncement of the order, he made a request to the Tribunal to allow him to
file some more material besides the application bearing CA No. 299 of 2019
filed by him on 11.02.2019, the Tribunal did not pronounce the order on
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 781 of 2020 1 28.02.2019 and allowed the Appellant to file additional affidavit and
documents.
The Respondent filed reply to the CA no. 299 of 2019 dated 11.02.2019
on 08.03.2019 along with documents. An affidavit was also filed at the instance
of the respondent on 08.03.2019 whereas the Appellant filed an Affidavit dated
28.03.2019 along with documents.
It is further submitted that after the Tribunal heard the arguments again
and reserved the order on 03.05.2019 which was ultimately pronounced on
24.02.2020. The grievance of the Appellant is that the Tribunal did not take
into consideration the application bearing CA no. 299 of 2019, reply to the
application filed on 08.03.2019 with documents, affidavit dated 28.03.2019
filed along with documents and pronounced the same order which was drafted
at the time of pronouncement on 28.02.2019 by scoring off the said date and
putting 24.02.2020 as the date of pronouncement of order.
It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed without
application of mind and without considering fresh material i.e. application CA
No. 299 of 2019, its reply, affidavit dated 08.03.2019 and the affidavit dated
28.03.2019 filed along with documents.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has submitted that
though there is no reference of the aforesaid documents in impugned order
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 781 of 2020 2 passed by the Tribunal but the Tribunal had actually applied its mind to the
said material which was allowed to be brought on record after 28.02.2019 and
has passed the impugned order which does not call for any interference.
We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record
with their able assistance. It may be observed at the outset that we are not
touching the merits of this case and have only considered the grievance of the
appellant to the extent that the Tribunal has not given any reasons in the
impugned order as to how and why the documents /materials taken on record
after 28.02.2019 were not found worth consideration and if these
documents/materials were considered then how the same were irrelevant for
the purpose of coming to the same conclusion of maintaining the order of
dismissal of the application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) by the Appellant.
Since the reasons in the impugned order in this regard are conspicuous
by its absence, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned
order deserves to be set aside for the purpose of remanding it back to the
'Tribunal' to record reasons in regard to the additional material permitted to be
taken on record after 28.02.2019.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 781 of 2020 3 Hence, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for decision afresh on the basis of
the material already available on record. No costs.
Parties are directed to appear before the 'Tribunal' on 6th July, 2022.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
sa/rr
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 781 of 2020 4
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