Uberlux Concepts Llp vs Na
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 666 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal condones a ten-day delay in filing the appeal where counsel shows sufficient grounds in the condonation application. Where the Adjudicating Authority rejects a Section 10 application for want of the record of default, the appellate body will not decide the merits of default or debt, but may grant liberty to the applicant to refile the application accompanied by the record of default and of the debt owed to financial or operational creditors, the grant of liberty not amounting to any finding that a default has occurred or that a debt is due. A direction imposing costs is set aside where no reason for imposing costs is found, the costs being unsupported by any stated ground.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Uberlux Concepts LLP. ...Appellant
Present:
For Appellant : Mr. Mohit Singh, Advocate
ORDER
01.11.2018 Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and being
satisfied with the grounds shown in the application, the delay of ten days in
preferring the appeal is condoned.
I.A. No. 1752 of 2018 stands disposed of.
This appeal has been preferred by 'Uberlux Concepts LLP' (Corporate
Applicant) against order dated 14th June, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating
Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) New Delhi whereby an application
preferred by the appellant under Section 10 of the I&B Code has been rejected
on the aground of non-furnishing the relevant record of the 'default'.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant instead of going into
the merit give liberty to the appellant to file a fresh application under Section 10
of the I&B Code along with record of 'default' and the 'debt' payable to one or
other 'financial creditors' or 'operational creditors'. However, we make it clear
that liberty granted to the appellant does not mean that we have held that there
is a 'default' and 'debt' is due, which is to be established by the appellant
referring to the records of the 'debt' and 'default'. -2-
Further, as we find no reason for imposing cost, the impugned order dated
14th June, 2018 is set aside so far it relates to imposition of cost of Rs.25,000/-
The appeal stands disposed of. No cost.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Member (Judicial)
/ns/uk/
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 666 of 2018
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