Yajur Commodities Ltd vs Nanda Energy Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 730 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Estoppel by record bars a party from pleading facts in conflict with the judicial record; where the record shows that a party was directed to appear and was absent, a plea that its advocate appeared and sought adjournment, contrary to the minutes of proceedings, cannot furnish a ground for setting aside a dismissal for default. An operational creditor applying under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 bears the burden of satisfying the Adjudicating Authority that the operational debt is due and that a default has been committed by the corporate debtor in relation to it, warranting admission of the application.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhinav Anand and Mr. Anubhav Anand Aron, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan and Ms. Suriti Chowdhary, Advocates
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
01.09.2020 This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 3 rd
March, 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal), Special Bench-II, Chennai by virtue whereof application filed by the
Appellant (Operational Creditor) under Rule 48(2) and Rule 11 of NCLT Rules,
2016 for setting aside of the order dated 4th December, 2019 vide which the
Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application under Section 9 of the I&B
Code for default, and further seeking the restoration of petition has been
dismissed on the ground that the Appellant has asserted facts which are self-
contradictory and no ground is made out for restoration.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the Appellant, we find that the
application filed by the Appellant claiming to be an 'Operational Creditor' under
Section 9 of the 'I&B Code' against the Respondent (Corporate Debtor) was
pending at pre -admission stage and since the Appellant was truant with the
Adjudicating Authority and did not appear on 20 th November, 2019, pre-emptory 2
direction seeking its appearance to argue the matter came to be passed and the
matter was adjourned to 4th December, 2019. However, the Appellant again
failed to appear on that day and the application came to be dismissed for default.
Subsequently, the application being I.A.142/IB/2020 was filed for see king
setting aside of the order of dismissal for default passed on 4 th December, 2019
with further prayer of restoration of application which came to be dismissed after
taking into consideration the contradictory stand taken in the application.
Dealing with the aforesaid Interlocutory Application, the Adjudicating Authority
has taken note of the ground pleaded for seeking setting aside of the dismissal
order which stated that Advocate V. Dinesh Raja appeared on behalf of the
Appellant on 4th December, 2019 and filed one page written submissions which
was taken on record but could not advance arguments and sought adjournment
as his Vakalatnama was not on record. This stand taken by the Appellant was
found to be in conflict with the judicial record. While referring to the minutes of
the proceedings recorded on 4th December, 2019, the Adjudicating Authority
noticed that despite pre -emptory directions given on 20th November, 2019 the
Appellant (Operational Creditor) chose to remain absent leaving the Adjudicating
Authority with no option but to dismiss the application. It is manifestly clear
that the stand taken by the Appellant (Operational Creditor) for setting aside of
the dismissal order is against the record and the Appellant was estopped from
pleading any fact against the judicial record. Estoppel by record would not
permit the Appellant to take a stand in conflict with and contradictory thereto.
Therefore, it can be safely stated that no ground, much less a cogent ground
warranting setting aside of the dismissal order, was made out by the Appellant.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 730 of 2020 3
3. It is indisputable that it was the Appellant's (Operational Creditor 's) duty
to satisfy the Adjudicating Authority that the operational debt was due and
default had been committed in relation thereto by the Corporate Debtor
warranting admission of application under Section 9 of the I&B Code. What
transpires from the record is that the Appellant/Operational Creditor has played
hide and seek with the Adjudicating Authority and instead of satisfying it as
regards making out of a case for admission of application under Section 9 of the
I&B Code, it has come up with palpably false plea trying to belie the judicial
record which it was estopped from doing.
We find no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed.
[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Acting Chairperson
[Justice Venugopal M.] Member (Judicial)
[ Shreesha Merla ] Member (Technical)
/ns/gc/
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 730 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