2023 (7) TMI 1565 - AT - IBC

Principles of natural justice - submission of appellant is that one more opportunity ought to have been given to the Appellant for final argument which were not advanced on 26.06.2023 due to unavailability of arguing counsel - HELD THAT - The order having already reserved by the Adjudicating Authority and request of the Appellant for setting aside order dated 26.06.2023 having been refused we are of the view that the Appellate Court cannot issue a direction to the Adjudicating Authority in facts of the present case for rehearing. Appellant has already filed its Reply and Written Submission which was permitted by the Adjudicating Authority. There are no reason that reply and written submission shall not be considered by the Adjudicating Authority while pronouncing the order. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Principal Bench in New Delhi, presided over by Justice Ashok Bhushan and Barun Mitra, addressed an appeal concerning two orders dated 26.06.2023 and 30.06.2023. The Appellant, represented by Mr. Krishnendu Datta and others, sought to set aside the order of 26.06.2023, which was reserved after the Adjudicating Authority refused an adjournment request. The subsequent application, I.A. No. 2722 of 2023, was also rejected on 30.06.2023. The Appellant argued for another opportunity to present final arguments, citing the unavailability of their arguing counsel.The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority had already reserved its order and had allowed the Appellant to file a Reply and Written Submission. The Tribunal concluded that it could not direct the Adjudicating Authority to rehear the case, as the Appellant's submissions were already on record and should be considered in the final decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the procedural aspects had been adequately addressed.