Rikhab Chand Jain vs Drp Financial Services Pvt Ltd & Ors
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1103 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an Adjudicating Authority has rejected a Section 7 application without the applicant having been given a fair opportunity to place the relevant documents before it, the Appellate Tribunal may set aside that order and revive the application, directing the Adjudicating Authority to consider it afresh in accordance with law, while expressing no opinion on the merits of either party's case.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1103 of 2023 & I.A. No. 3812 of 2023 IN THE MATTER OF: Rikhab Chand Jain Proprietor T T Industries ...Appellants Versus DRP Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mukul Raao and Ms. Anju, Advocates.
For Respondents : None.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
23.08.2024: In this appeal notices were issued to the respondents on
12.09.2023 by following order :-
ORDER 12.09.2023: Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that although the Appellant could not file NeSL certificate, balance sheet and TDS certificate under Section 194A of Income Tax Act before the Adjudicating Authority, in the Appeal those documents are brought on record which indicate that financial debt was there.
Submission needs scrutiny.
Issue notice. Requisites alongwith process fee be filed within three days. Reply be filed by the Respondents within three weeks. Rejoinder be filed within two weeks thereafter. List this Appeal on 08.11.2023.
2. Notices issued were not served appellant was permitted to serve the
notices by publication appellant has filed the affidavit of service as noticed in
the order dated 11.01.2024 and again on 14.02.2024 no one appeared for the
respondents. This appeal has been filed against the order passed by
Adjudicating Authority by which Section 7 application filed by the appellant
was rejected Adjudicating Authority has passed an order on 31.05.2023 giving
opportunity to the appellant to establish how the application was maintainable
in the law. It was noted in para-2 that appellant has not produced the balance
sheets of the corporate debtor as on 31.03.2022 when the appeal was heard on
first date i.e; 12.09.2023 by this Tribunal. It was noted that the relevant
documents were brought on the record to prove the financial debt. The
appellant in this appeal has brought on record the NeSL Certificate and other
relevant documents to prove the financial debt.
3. In facts of the present case we are of the view that an opportunity be
given to the appellant to place all relevant documents by means of an
Additional-Affidavit before the Adjudicating Authority and Adjudicating
Authority to consider the application afresh in accordance with law.
4. In result, we set aside the order dated 14.06.2023, revive the application
under Section 7 to be heard and decided afresh in accordance with law.
5. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on merits of the
case of either of the parties and it is for Adjudicating Authority to consider and
decide accordingly.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1103 of 2023 2 of 3 Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) harleen/NN
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1103 of 2023 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