Sh. Naveen Kumar Jain vs Bank Of Baroda Erstwhile Vijaya Bank
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 560 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal's reasoning rests on the following principles, stated in the order the Tribunal takes them: Where an application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has been dismissed for the non-appearance or unpreparedness of the applicant's counsel and representative, the costs imposed for that default may be sustained as meeting the interests of justice, and the Appellate Tribunal will not disturb such costs where they have been deposited. Where an applicant has been deprived of a hearing on the merits by reason of a technical default that prevented the applicant's counsel from presenting the facts, the appellate tribunal may, in the interests of justice, set aside the dismissal and remit the application to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh hearing and decision on merits, while maintaining the costs already imposed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
In the matter of: Naveen Kumar Jain ....Appellant Vs. Bank of Baroda ....Respondent
For Appellant: Mr. Kunal Bansal, Mr. Varun Tikmani, Mr. Ramakant Rai and Mr. Naveen Kumar Jain, Advocates. For Respondents: Kush Sharma and Ms. Priya Choubey, Advocates.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
20.05.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Learned
Counsel appearing for the Respondent/'Bank of Baroda'. This Appeal has been
filed against the Order dated 22/02/2022 passed by the Learned Adjudicating
Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court-II) in I.A.
2059 of 2021 in CP (IB) No.-702/(ND)/2018. The Applicant has prayed for
following prayers in his Application:
"a. Issue direction to Respondent to reinstate the fixed deposits of Rs. 7.76 Crore of the Corporate Debtor and provide certificate of reinstatement to the Resolution Professional.
b. Issue direction to Respondent to provide custody and control of the fixed deposits of 7.76 Crore of the Corporate Debtor to the Applicant/Resolution Professional.
c. To direct the Respondent to release the accrued interest of the fixed deposits accrued from 25.07.2018 till date and further to the escrow account of the corporate debtor along with control of the said account to the Resolution Professional.
d. and pass such other as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2 2. The Application came for hearing before the Adjudicating Authority who
observed that neither the Counsel appearing for the RP nor the RP was aware
of the facts mentioned in the Application, the Application was dismissed with
cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
3. The Resolution Professional, aggrieved by the Order, has come up in the
Appeal. The cost has already been deposited to PM Relief Fund in pursuance of
the Order dated 22/02/2022.
4. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that due to technical glitch they
could not express themselves nor could explain of the facts to the Court. He
submits that the Application has been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority
due to such default on part of the Applicant, hence, in the ends of justice, the
Applicant may be given another opportunity to make their submissions in their
I.A. 2509/2021.
5. We are of the view that the imposition of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the
Adjudicating Authority for the default shall meet the interest of justice, which
has already been deposited.
6. We, after hearing the Counsel for the Applicant, are of the view that one
opportunity may be given to the Applicant to make his submissions in I.A.
2059/2021.
7. The Appeal is party allowed and the Application I.A. 2509/2021 is
revived before the Adjudicating Authority, who may hear the Counsel for both
the parties, in I.A. 2509/2021 afresh and decide the matter on merits.
However, the Order in so far directs for the deposit of the cost is maintained.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 560 of 2022 3
8. Learned Counsel for the Financial Creditor submits that the Application
has already filed before the Adjudicating Authority for change in RP. It is open
for the Counsel for the Financial Creditor to request the Adjudicating Authority
to hear pending Applications also.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)
[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) himanshu/gc
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 560 of 2022
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