TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority on receipt of application shall ascertain the existence of default within 14 days and under Section 7 (5) on satisfaction that the default had occurred, admit the application by passing an order. This procedure was duly followed and the order was passed. There was no irregularity hence the prayer for recalling such an order, which is valid in the eyes of law, deserves rejection. Otherwise also this Bench has no jurisdiction to review its own order. The prayer for staying the operation of Insolvency is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. The applicant has not demonstrated any provision of the Insolvency Code under which the staying of Insolvency proceedings could be demanded. In the absence of any jurisdiction being not ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to communicate to the Learned Counsel of the Petitioner to be present on Monday 16.09.2019 so that according to the convenience of both the sides the date can be fixed to hear MA-2984/2019 on priority basis. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant has informed that one Stay Application Diary No. 6559 has also been filed on 11.09.2019. To be tagged along with MA-2984/2019. 4. Matter is adjourned to 16.09.2019. 3. While the said application was pending again a miscellaneous application MA 3061/2019 was filed on 11.09.2019. In this application the prayer was that the operation of 30.08.2019 order be stayed till the decision on MA 2984.The Learned Representative appeared in the morning session as well as in the afternoon session a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Application Diary No. 6559 has also been filed on 11.09.2019. To be tagged along with MA-2984/2019. 4. Matter is adjourned to 16.09.2019. 5. Once an early hearing has already been granted, it is expected from the Learned Representatives and the Applicant to adhere to the directions. Today in the morning it is vehemently pressed to grant stay, that too, ex-parte in the absence of the opposite side. Again in the afternoon when the Court reassembled after Lunch hour the Learned Counsel has mentioned the impugned MA-2984/2019 by holding the proceedings of rest of the Board. Today this Bench had a very heavy Cause List of about 91 matter, but the Learned Counsel wanted the ex-parte stay by not allowing to call the hearing of the cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Corporate Debtor was not able to appear before the NCLT Bench. It is wrong to allege that there was due service of notice intimating the date of hearing of 28.08.2019. It is pleaded that an order was reserved for 28.08.2019. The said Order was not available to the Corporate Debtor till 10.09.2019, Therefore, applications were moved for immediate injunction. The respondent debtor was deprived of natural justice. If the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process proceedings are not stayed the respondent debtor shall suffer irreparable loss to be caused on advertisement by the Interim Resolution Professional. Hence, finally prayed to stop the advertisement by giving instructions of stay to the Interim Resolution Professional. 6. On the oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Dates as per the Corporate Debtor as under:- 1. On 28.08.2019 the Company Petition was reserved for order ex-parte. 2. On 30.08 2019 the admission order pronounced [order copy was not available till 10.09.2019 and online status was RFO] 3. On 03.09.2019 MA - 2984/2019 filed by the Applicant for recall of the order. 4. On 05.09.2019 the MA 2984/2019 was mentioned and circulation of the same was granted on 24.09.2019 with direction to give notice to petitioner about the date of hearing. 7. Heard the parties, Perused the record. It is worth to place on record that the petition was submitted on 27.05.2019 by the Financial Creditor, listed for hearing in due course. On 24.07.2019 the Bench had made an observation as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt had occurred, admit the application by passing an order. This procedure was duly followed and the order was passed. There was no irregularity hence the prayer for recalling such an order, which is valid in the eyes of law, deserves rejection. Otherwise also this Bench has no jurisdiction to review its own order. 9. Further, the prayer for staying the operation of Insolvency is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. The applicant has not demonstrated any provision of the Insolvency Code under which the staying of Insolvency proceedings could be demanded. In the absence of any jurisdiction being not vested with NCLT Bench to stay the operation of Insolvency, this prayer as well, is hereby dismissed. 10. Applications MA 3061/2019 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
