TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 904
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Court VI, New Delhi), by which an application bearing No. I.A. 4143 of 2022 in Company Petition No. (IB) - 2340 (ND)/2019 filed by 'Akasa Finance Limited' (Financial Creditor), has been allowed and 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' (CIRP) proceedings against Auto Needs (India) Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) has been revived. 2. The facts in brief are that the Financial Creditor filed an application under Section 7 of 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016' (in short 'Code') against the Corporate Debtor before the Adjudicating Authority which was admitted on 20.12.2019. The said order was challenged by the present Appellant by way of appeal bearing Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has prayed for passing an order in compliance with the directions given by the Hon'ble NCLAT in its order dated 18.07.2022 for revival of this petition. The order of Hon'ble NCLAT has been passed by the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant has also prayed for the following:- (a) Pass an order and re-impose moratorium on the Corporate Debtor in terms of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (b) Pass an order directing the current Interim Resolution Professional Shri Vinay Kumar Jaidrath to resume his obligations and duties under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy, 2016; or appoint Shri Ajay Kumar Kathuria, Insolvency Professional, as the Interim Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor. The Counsel for the Applicant ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rection and this Tribunal confirms that Corporate Debtor was not present before this Adjudicating Authority on 01.09.2022. Therefore, the IA/4453/2022 stands allowed. This Tribunal hereby directs the Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor to be invariably present and properly defend his client on all dates of hearing. This will result in mitigating the risk of passing of orders by hearing only Counsel of one party who was present i.e. the Counsel for the Financial Creditor. We also understand that the Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor was not only absent in the hearing on that day but he also preferred an appeal against the order dated 01.09.2022 which could have been easily avoided, if he had been present on the date of hearing and have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the Appellant (Corporate Debtor). 6. On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent (Financial Creditor) has vehemently argued that this Tribunal while allowing the appeal - CA(AT) (Ins) No. 103 of 2022 had categorically observed that the Application filed under Section 7 of the Code has been revived. It is also submitted that an advance copy was given of the application to the Appellant who did not choose to appear. Therefore, the impugned has rightly been passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 7. We have heard counsels for the parties and after examining the record, are of the considered opinion that there is a total fallacy on the part of the Adjudicating Authority in passing the impugned order as it hits the salutary principle of au....