Samyak Projects Private Limited vs Ashwani Kumar Singla & Anr
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 50 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal, having disposed of an application without reference to the appellant's reply and rejoinder and by relying only on the applicant's averments and counsel's submissions, must consider the objections and the material placed on record before deciding the application; an order passed without such consideration cannot stand and the matter must be remanded for fresh adjudication on the full record.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 50 of 2024 & I.A. No. 162, 163 of 2024
IN THE MATTER OF: Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd ...Appellant
Versus Jalesh Kumar Grover RP Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. Fernhills Project & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Kholi, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Sandeep Bhuraria, Ms. Nishtha Grover, Ms. Surbhi Bhuraria & Ms. Bhavya Bhatia, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli & Ms. Ridhima Mehrotra, Advocates.
ORDER
(HYBRID MODE)
[Per : Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Oral) ]
01.10.2024 This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.12.2023 by
which the National Company Law Tribunal, Court - II at New Delhi ('Tribunal')
has disposed of an application bearing I.A No. 1459 of 2023 filed by the
Resolution Professional/ Respondent No. 1 under Section 19(2) of the
Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('Code') issuing directions against the
Appellant to handover all the assets/ documents/properties qua the FernHill
Project and hand over of the possession of the "FernHill Project" to Respondent
No. 1 forthwith.
2. Besides arguing on the merits of the case, Counsel for the Appellant has
submitted that the reply was filed by the Appellant contesting the application
and rejoinder was also filed by the Applicant/ Appellant. However, the
Tribunal without applying its mind, relied upon averments made in the
application and submissions made by Counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent No. 1 and disposed of the application with the directions
mentioned herein above.
3. Counsel for the Appellant has thus prayed that the Impugned Oder may
be set aside and the matter be remanded back for its adjudication by the
Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the objection of the Appellant
to the Application as well as other circumstances. He has also submitted that
there is no amendment in Section 19 (1) of the Code which has been mentioned
in the Impugned Order.
4. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has not raised any serious objection to the
submission made by the Appellant, therefore, the present appeal is hereby
allowed and the Impugned Order dated 06.12.2023 passed in I.A No. 1459 of
2023 by the Tribunal is set aside and I.A No. 1459 of 2023 is restored.
5. The matter is remanded back to the Learned Tribunal to decide I.A
No. 1459 of 2023 after taking into consideration the reply and rejoinder as well
as other evidence brought on record in support and against the case and decide the same as early as possible but preferably within a period of one
month from the date of appearance of the parties in this application
6. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 18.10.2024.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)
[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)
Sim/Ravi
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