V-Con Integrated Solutions ... vs Gnec Media Private Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 505 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
In an appeal against an order dismissing an operational creditor's Section 9 application for non-prosecution, where the creditor's counsel was present and sought adjournment, but the respondent did not appear despite service, the Appellate Tribunal held that the dismissal should be set aside and the application revived, because the operational creditor ought to have been given one more opportunity to address the merits before the Adjudicating Authority.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: V-Con Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
GNEC Meida Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Ms. Kritika Nagpal, Advocate
For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
19.03.2024: Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 17.01.2024 by which
Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the application for non-prosecution.
Appellant is the Operational Creditor who had filed the application and on
21.12.2023 following order was passed:
"ORDER Ms. Kritika Nagpal, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner/Operational Creditor appears through VC and states that the proof of service has been filed.
None appears on behalf of the Respondent. Await appearance of Respondent. In the interest of justice, list the matter on 16.01.2024."
The matter was listed on 16.01.2024 on which date it was re-notified on
17.01.2024.
3. Adjudicating Authority in paragraph-5 of the impugned order has stated
that despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the Respondent.
4. Appellant's submission that on the date, Counsel appeared on behalf of
Appellant and prayed for adjournment since the Counsel who had to argue the
matter was not present which was communicated to the Court but the
Adjudicating Authority proceeded to dismiss the application for non-
prosecution.
5. From the sequence of the events and earlier order passed on 21.12.2023,
it is clear that date was fixed for appearance of the Corporate Debtor who did
not appear on the said date which has been noticed in paragraph-5 of the
impugned order.
6. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that one more
opportunity ought to have been given to the Operational Creditor to address
submission of merits. We are thus satisfied that the order dated 17.01.2024
need to be set aside and Section 9 application be revived before the
Adjudicating Authority. We have not issued the notice to the Respondent since
no one was present when the order was passed on 17.01.2024 dismissing the
application for non-prosecution.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
(Mr. Arun Baroka) Member(Technical) akc/Mn Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 505 of 2024 Page 2 of 2
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