Solutions Business Centre Llp vs Renu Kumar & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1020 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Adjudicating Authority, in deciding whether a particular party or person should be heard on a disputed matter, requires their presence, the tribunal holds that it is more appropriate to give the concerned parties or persons the option of appearing either in person or through an Advocate, rather than compelling personal attendance.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: M/s. Solutions Business Centre LLP D-2, Lower Ground Floor, Southern Park, Saket, New Delhi- 110017 ...Appellant. Versus 1. Renu Kumar Ro A-10/7. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110057 2. Rajit Kumar Ro A-10/7. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110057 3. Mr. Abhishek Dutta, RP for M/s. Solutions Business Center Pvt. Ltd. IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00617/2018-19/11856 Aureus Law Partners, S-151, 1st Floor, Greater Kailash - II, New Delhi - 110048 ...Respondents.
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Raja Chatterjee and Mr. Piyush Sachdev, Advocates. For Respondent: Ms. Haripriya Padmanabha, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Advocates for R-1&R-2. Mr. Abhishek Dutta, Syli Petiwale and Astha Srivastava, Advocates for R-3 (RP)
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
16.04.2021 Heard.
2
2. This Appeal has been filed against Order passed in I.A. No. 3218,
1248/2020 in IB-475/ND/2018. The Order reads as under:
"IA No. 1248/2020:
Learned Counsel Mr. Chatterjee states that reply has been filed on 26.10.2020 which has not come on Court file. RoC was directed to file Reply with respect to the issue raised in this application on 18th September, 2019. Though, this application was filed later but the issue was already agitated. ROC has filed reply with respect to the issue in this application in CA No. 297/2019 which will be referred. The same reply has also been filed by ROC in CA No. 196/2019. At this stage, when hearing argument, it is required and hence, the following person are directed to remain present on the next date of hearing being Ex.-Directors Mr. Ajay Vij, Ms. Parul Khurana and Partners of LLP Mr. Naveen Gambhir, Neeraj Gambhir, Mr. Pankaj Gambhir, Ms. Shaloo Gambhir, Ms. Geeta Gambhir, Ms. Lovleen Gambhir.
IA No. 3218/2020:
Application filed by Liquidator.
List both the applications on 24.11.2020."
(Emphasis Supplied)
3. It is stated that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was initiated
against the Company. It is stated, there is dispute with regard to the Company
being converted into LLP and in that context, the Adjudicating Authority had
called the persons. The I.A. concerned is yet to be decided.
4. If in a matter, the Adjudicating Authority finds it necessary to hear the
particular side or particular person in order to give them opportunity to respond,
it is more appropriate to give option to the concerned parties/person to appear
in person or through Advocate.
5. It is stated that the disputes with regard to how LLP was formed, are still
being considered by the Adjudicating Authority.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1020 of 2020 3
6. It not being Criminal Case or Contempt Proceeding we would only modify
the portion of Impugned Order emphasized above with underline in Impugned
Order to say that "the following persons (who are part of the Appellant) to remain
present in person or through Advocate on the next date of hearing"
With such modification, we dispose of the Appeal.
[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
Basant B./md.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1020 of 2020
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