Vivo Healthcare Private Limited vs Caspian Impact Investments Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1514 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellate tribunal declined to interfere with an order admitting a Section 7 application where the corporate debtor, having been given notice and having filed a reply that admitted the financial facility and the default, failed to file its vakalatnama and written submissions and proceeded ex parte; in such circumstances a claim of a technical glitch or breach of natural justice does not warrant appellate interference. A corporate debtor that has admitted the debt and default in its reply cannot, on appeal, rely on a denial of opportunity to be heard as a ground to set aside admission under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A stated intention to settle does not by itself furnish a ground for appellate relief; any settlement must be pursued before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 12A of the Code.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Vivo Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant
Vs.
Caspian Impact Investments Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. N.K. Kantawala, Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Mr. Naveen Gaur, Mr. Deepak Jain, Mr. Abhishek, Mr. Amaya M. Nair, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Abir Roy, Mr. Vivek Pandey, Mr. Aman Shankar and Ms. S. Viswanathan, Advocates
ORDER
21.12.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 23.11.2022
passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench by which
an application under Section 7 filed by the Financial Creditor has been
admitted.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there was a violation of
principle of justice since the appellant could not make his submission due to
some technical glitch and the Vakalatnama was filed by the counsel which was
in defect.
4. We have considered the submission of the counsel for the appellant and
perused the record.
Contd.../-
2
5. In paragraph 5 of the impugned order Adjudicating Authority has made
following observations:
"The notice of this petition was issued to the respondent
corporate debtor vide order dated 09.10.2020 for 24.11.2020 to
show cause as to why this petition be not admitted. The reply
was filed on behalf of the respondent-corporate debtor vide
Diary No. 00606/4 dated 28.07.2021, wherein, the corporate
debtor accepts the liability on account of dues claim and
undertakes to re-pay the reasonable, outstanding, justified
financial debt within the span of five years to the financial
creditor. Further, it is submitted that the financial creditor failed
to provide valid bifurcation of the putstanding financial debt,
and documents annexed to the petition are not legible. The
rejoinder was filed by the petitioner-financial creditor vide Diary
No. 00606/5 dated 02.03.2021. Vide order dated 10.11.2022,
the respondent-corporate debtor was directed to file
Vakalatnama as well as written submissions. Neither the
Vakalatnama was filed nor the written submissions, thus, it
has been observed that the respondent corporate debtor was
not interested in defending the present petition, therefore, the
respondent corporate debtor proceeded ex parte. The short
written submissions were filed by the petitioner-financial
creditor vide Dairy No. 00606/7 dated 01.08.2022."
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1514 of 2022 3
6. Adjudicating Authority has issued notice to the Corporate Debtor and a
reply was already filed before the Adjudicating Authority in which paragraph 5
facilities was admitted and in paragraph 10 default was also admitted by the
Corporate Debtor.
7. In facts of the present case, we see no reason to entertain this appeal.
8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant lastly contended that appellant intent
to settle the matter with the Financial Creditor.
9. It is open for the appellant to enter into settlement and file appropriate
application in accordance with Section 12 A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 before the Adjudicating Authority.
10. With these observations, appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
sa/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1514 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