Vineet Agarwal vs Pankaj Narang
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1229 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appellant's grievance is that the impugned order was passed ex parte because no one appeared on his behalf before the adjudicating authority, the appropriate remedy lies first before the adjudicating authority itself, by an application for recall or modification of the order, and the appellate tribunal will decline to entertain an appeal on that footing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Vineet Agarwal ....Appellant Vs. Pankaj Narang ...Respondent For Appellant: Present but not marked appearance. For Respondent: Mr. Harish Taneja, Mr. Nalin Kohli, Advocates Mr. Aman Raj Singh, Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Mr. Shourya Shyam, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Mr. Utkarsh Kokcha, Mr. Parth Aggarwal, Advocates.
ORDER
18.09.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.08.2023 passed
by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi,
Court-IV, by which order Adjudicating Authority has directed to file an FIR to
the relevant police station in respect of acts of omission and commission made
by the erstwhile Resolution Professional Mr. Vineet Agarwal and also for
tracing his whereabouts. Earlier an order dated 20.07.2023 was passed for
lodging an FIR which was kept in abeyance. On 25.08.2023, Adjudicating
Authority granted time to the Appellant to comply it and date was fixed to
18.09.2023. Inspite of repeated calls, no one has appeared on behalf of the
Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority, hence, the Adjudicating Authority
proceeded to pass an order.
2
3. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant stating that the Appellant's
Counsel was present but she was under impression that case was adjourned.
She submits that Appellant is also present in the Court. It is submitted that
today is the date fixed before the Adjudicating Authority as per order dated
25.08.2023.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the case is listed
today before the Adjudicating Authority as a last case and is likely to take up
before Lunch.
5. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that since the
Appellant's case is that the order is ex parte, Appellant may file an appropriate
Application before the Adjudicating Authority for recall/modification of the
order. Appellant may also appear before the Adjudicating Authority and seeks
further direction in continuation of the order dated 25.08.2023, if any.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain this Appeal. The
Appeal is disposed of with aforesaid observations.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
Anjali/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1229 of 2023 & I.A. No. 4341 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