TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 - - - Dated:- 22-1-2019 - Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya (Chairperson) and Bansi Lal Bhat (Judicial Member) For Appellant: - Mr. P. Nagesh and Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocates. Mr. Videh Vaish and Mr. Shashank K. Lal, Advocates. For Respondents: -Mr. Ankit Jain (PCS) for R.P. Mr. Anmol Vyas, Advocate for R.P Mr. Satyendra, R.P Mr. Naresh Kumar Sejvani, Advocate for Intervenor. ORDER This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the order dated 8th June, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Court-III, whereby and whereunder, the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ( I B Code for short) preferred by M/s. M.N. Auxichem ( 1st Respondent herein) for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s. BTM Industries Limited ( Corporate Debtor ) has been admitted. 2. The appeal has been filed after some delay which has been explained by the Appellant- Mr. Anmol Tekriwal, Shareholder of M/s. BTM Industries Limited ( Corporate Debtor ). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n notice was issued to the Corporate Debtor , it was returned with note left , which according to him is incorrect. However, it is not in dispute that no notice before admission of application under Section 9 was served by the Adjudicating Authority on the Corporate Debtor . 7. An Intervention Application has been filed by Samarpan Synthetics Private Limited who claimed to have some settlement with the Corporate Debtor . 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Intervener submits that during the Moratorium two Memorandum of Understanding(s) have been entered and, therefore, the Appellant has wrongly stated that he came to know of the order subsequently. However, such submission cannot be accepted for the reason that the Intervener has no locus at the stage of admission to make any objection and, therefore, he cannot file Intervention Application, if any appeal is preferred against the order of admission. 9. This apart, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the copy of the impugned order was forwarded to the Appellant by the Adjudicating Authority or by the Resolution Professional . Even if it is accepted that certified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t dated 7th April, 2017 held as follows:- However, it is to apply the principles of natural justice in the proceedings before it. It can regulate it own procedure, however, subject to the other provisions of the Act of 2013 or the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016 and any Rules made thereunder. The Code of 2016 read with the Rules 2016 is silent on the procedure to be adopted at the hearing of an application under section 7 presented before the NCLT, that is to say, it is silent whether a party respondent has a right of hearing before the adjudicating authority or not. Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 requires the NCLT and NCLAT to adhere to the principles of the natural justice above anything else. It also allows the NCLT and NCLAT the power to regulate their own procedure. Fetters of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not bind it. However, it is required to apply its principles. Principles of natural justice require an authority to hear the other party. In an application under Section 7 of the Code of 2016, the financial creditor is the applicant while the corporate debtor is the respondent. A proceeding for declaration of insolvenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section (1) of Section 7 of the Code of 2017 is required to be filed before the adjudicating authority in accordance with Rules 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 26 or Part-HI of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016. Adherence to the principles of natural justice by NCLT or NCLAT would not mean that in every situation, NCLT or NCLAT is required to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent before passing its order. In a given case, a situation may arise which may require NCLT to pass an ex-parte ad interim order against a respondent. Therefore, in such situation NCLT, it may proceed to pass an ex-parte ad interim order, however, after recording the reasons for grant of such an order and why it has chosen not to adhere to the principles of natural justice at that stage. It must, thereafter proceed to afford the party respondent an opportunity of hearing before confirming such ex-parte ad interim order. In the facts of the present case, the learned senior advocate for the petitioner submits that, orders have been passed by the NCLT without adherence to the principles of natural justice. The respondent was not heard by the N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
