Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + HC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 398 - HC - Insolvency and BankruptcyHearing of petition - matter listed for hearing on virtual mode - grievance is that it should not be partly physical and partly through virtual hearing - HELD THAT:- The readiness shown before this Court orally about hearing through virtual platform, it runs counter to his prayer made in this petition at paragraph 35(B), with a view to delay the proceedings, which is ordered by the NCLAT to be heard expeditiously. The sequence of events, which took place on 27.07.2020, the date of hearing, stated on oath by the petitioner, is not recorded in the order by the adjudicating authority dated 27.07.2020, which is at page 28. The said assertion on oath cannot be believed to be true unless it is found in the order itself. Any assertion on oath made in any petition cannot dislodge what is recorded in the order of the Court or Tribunal. Even if it has happened, there is no contemporaneous record to suggest the same. The issue that the hearing before the adjudicating authority whether it should be by virtual mode or physical mode or partly virtual mode or partly physical mode requires to be determined by the authority subject to the instructions issued by the appellate authority or instructions issued by the competent Government in view of a situation like this pandemic for a particular course of action. However, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot issue mandamus for which there is no prayer made to the authority conducting hearing. If any party has any constraints joining virtual hearing or physical hearing, they may ventilate that grievance before the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority thereof. The reliance placed on the press note dated 27.07.2020 issued by the High Court permitting hard copy i.e. physical filing of the matters in subordinate Courts is again issued to the subordinate Courts by the High Court and that too for the purpose of filing only. Nowhere the High Court has permitted even physical hearing, and therefore, the reliance placed on the same is erroneous. Entertaining this petition any further where the NCLAT has directed the adjudicating authority the expeditious disposal of the proceedings would amount to setting aside the order passed by NCLAT, the jurisdiction of which is not with this Court - this petition is rejected with cost of ₹ 10,000/-.
|