Shri Rakesh Bindal And Ors vs M/S B.P. Bansal Agritech Private ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 302 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Corporate Debtor, as the party against whom an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is filed, is entitled to raise all pleas permissible in law to oppose that application, and the absence of relevant material on record from the Financial Creditor does not, by itself, deprive it of that right. A shareholder who is not a party to the Section 7 proceeding and who seeks to intervene by way of an application challenging the validity of a corporate guarantee, without more, does not thereby acquire a right to be heard in the proceeding, and rejection of such an intervention application on that ground is not an error.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Shri Rakesh Bindal & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus M/s. B.P. Bansal Agritech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Ms. Natasha Dhruman Shah, Advocate For Respondent: ORDER
(Virtual Mode) 30.03.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has
been filed against the Order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the Adjudicating
Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Indore Bench at Ahmedabad,
Division Bench, Court-1) in Inv.P/1(MP)2022. By which Order, the Intervention
Application i.e., Inv.P/1(MP)2022 filed by the Appellant has been rejected.
Appellant claims to be shareholder of the Corporate Debtor and have filed
Intervention Application wherein the prayer was made to declare the corporate
guarantee dated 10.06.2016 being in contravention of the provisions of the
Companies Act. Ld. Adjudicating Authority has rejected the Application on the
ground that Application is not maintainable. Learned Counsel for the Appellant
submits that relevant facts have not been brought on record by the Financial
Creditor.
2. Even if the Financial Creditor has not brought any relevant material on
record, the Corporate Debtor who has to defend its case has every right to raise 2
all pleas permissible in law to oppose the Application under Section 7 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
3. We see no error in the Impugned Order passed by the Adjudicating
Authority refusing the Intervention of the Application. There is no merit in the
Appeal, the Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
[Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)
Basant/nn
Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 302 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