Shreya Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd vs Lic Housing Finance Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.880
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal will not direct the Adjudicating Authority to rehear a matter where the order has already been reserved after hearing, the Adjudicating Authority has refused to set aside its order closing the hearing, and the party has already filed its reply and written submissions, which the Adjudicating Authority is bound to consider in pronouncing its order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Shreya Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants
Versus
LIC Housing Finance Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellants: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mahesh Agrawal, Mr. Ankur Saighal, Mr. Shivam Shukla and Ms. Prerana Wagh, Advocates. For Respondent: Ms. Doel Bose and Ms. Anannya Ghosh, Advocates for R-1.
ORDER
14.07.2023: Heard Shri Krishnendu Datta, learned senior counsel for
the Appellant as well as learned counsel for the Respondent. This Appeal has
been filed against the two orders dated 26.06.2023 and 30.06.2023. By order
dated 26.06.2023, the Adjudicating Authority has taken the reply on record
and after hearing the matter reserved the order. Application I.A. No. 2722 of
2023 was filed by the Appellant for setting aside the order dated 26.06.2023,
which too was rejected on 30.06.2023 with observation that Corporate Debtor
has filed Reply and written submission also permitted to be filed.
2. On 26.06.2023, when the matter was taken for hearing Learned counsel
for the Appellant requested for adjournment, which was not granted and after
Cont'd.../ -2-
hearing order was reserved. Appellant filed I.A. No. 2722 of 2023, the
Adjudicating Authority rejected the same.
3. Submission of Mr. Datta is that one more opportunity ought to have
been given to the Appellant for final argument, which were not advanced on
26.06.2023 due to unavailability of arguing counsel.
4. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the
record.
5. The order having already reserved by the Adjudicating Authority and
request of the Appellant for setting aside order dated 26.06.2023 having been
refused, we are of the view that the Appellate Court cannot issue a direction
to the Adjudicating Authority, in facts of the present case, for rehearing.
Appellant has already filed its Reply and Written Submission, which was
permitted by the Adjudicating Authority. We see not reason that reply and
written submission shall not be considered by the Adjudicating Authority
while pronouncing the order. With these observation, the Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.880 & 881 of 2023
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