Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Samyak Projects Private Limited vs Ashwani Kumar Singla & Anr

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal1 October 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

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH,NEW DELHI

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