Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 929 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAIRecovery of dues - onus on the Applicant to satisfy that there is pre-existing dispute or not - various meetings between both parties were held, to arrive at amicable settlement, but respondent has not filed reply - HELD THAT:- In reality, the established fact is that, the Respondent had filed a Reply, before the Adjudicating Authority, to the main Petition and apart from that, the Learned Counsel was heard at the time of Reserving the Orders, in the main Petition. When the fact situation is that, the Respondent had filed its Counter/ Reply / Response, before the Adjudicating Authority, to the main Petition, the Contra observation made by the Adjudicating Authority, Viz., that the Respondent had not filed its Reply is clearly an erroneous one, and there appears to be a Costly Lapse / Omission, on the part of the Adjudicating Authority in not noticing the filing of Counter / Reply, in a proper and real perspective. Therefore, this Tribunal, without going in to the merits of the Controversies/ Disputes, between the respective Parties and not delving deep in to the same, without any Haziness, simpliciter comes to an inevitable, inescapable and irresistible conclusion that the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench – II, Chennai), had committed a serious Material Irregularity and Patent Illegality in passing the impugned order and this Appellate Tribunal, to prevent an Aberration of Justice and in furtherance of Substantial Cause of Justice, sets aside. The matter is remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench – II, Chennai) to restore application filed by the Appellant / Operational Creditor / Petitioner, to its file, within two weeks from the date of pronouncement of Judgment.
|