TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he concerned person was prevented by any sufficient cause for appearing at the time when the Petition / Application was called for Hearing, the Tribunal (Adjudicating Authority) can pass an Order, by setting aside the Ex parte Hearing, as against it / him or them, (after being satisfied with the reason (s) assigned, of course) on such terms, as it thinks fit. In the instant case, although the Appellant / Bank, has come out with a specific plea that only due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the Appellant / Bank / Petitioner had skeletal staff operation, both at the Corporate Office, Branch Office, etc. and that were the only reasons for the Petitioner / Appellant / Bank was not quite enough to enter its appearance in the subject matter of the case b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal, Special Bench II, Chennai), whereby and whereunder, the Appellant / Bank was directed to refund a sum of Rs.11,30,40,034/- to the Corporate Debtor s Account in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process . 3. According to the Appellant / Bank a sum of Rs.11,30,40,034/- is not part of the Consortium Facility , vide Working Capital Consortium Agreement dated 30.09.2016, but, part of a Non-Consortium Facility of Rs.10,00,00,000/- granted to the Corporate Debtor , on 29.11.2017. Furthermore, it is projected on the side of the Appellant / Bank , that the Appellant , right to Live , and set off , were also preserved by the Consortium Agreement under Article 5 . Added further, the sum was granted to the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner is that the Application came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on 18.10.2022 without taking into consideration Rule 49 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which provides for sufficient cause in regard to the non-appearance of the parties . 7. Aggrieved by the Order of the Adjudicating Authority , (National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench) dated 03.03.2022 in IA(IBC)/1341(CHE)/2020 in IBA/243/2019, wherein the Appellant / Bank was set ex parte, the Appellant has filed the instant Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.446/2022. 8. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent / Liquidator , of M/s. Thiru Arooran Sugars Limited that the Petitioner / Appellant projected IA(IBC)/419(CHE) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not followed up to enter appearance in the Application . Hence, the Appellant / Bank was Ex parte and the IA(IBC)/1341(CHE)/2020 in IBA/243/2019, proceeded as Ex parte before the Adjudicating Authority (Tribunal). 12. It comes to be known that the Appellant / Bank had received a Notice from the 1st Respondent dated 25.03.2022 and the Notice was received by the Appellant / Bank on 28.03.2022, whereby and whereunder, the Appellant was demanded Rs.11,30,40,034 and also, the Notice was enclosed with a copy of the Order dated 03.03.2022. 13. The categorical Plea of the Appellant / Bank is that it had the Notice of the said Order dated 03.03.2022 received only on 28.03.2022. Later, the Bank had fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , of course, after having adequate opportunities. 17. It is specifically averred in the Counter of the 1st Respondent that the Notice for appearance was sent to the Corporate Debtor s Head Office , Branch Office and other Alternative Office of the Appellant / Petitioner / Bank on 16.07.2021 and the same was duly sent on 17.07.2021 and 22.07.2021 respectively. Apart from that, the Adjudicating Authority , Tribunal , after providing reasonable time, to the Appellant / Petitioner / Bank to enter appearance in the IA(IBC)/1341(CHE)/2020 in IBA/243/2019, has passed the Order on 03.03.2022, and in short, the Application filed by the Appellant / Petitioner / Bank , as per Rule 49 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 is unsus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn decision in the subject matter in issue. 22. To be noted, that Rule 49 (2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 under the caption , Ex parte Hearing and Disposal points out that if a Notice was not duly served or the concerned person was prevented by any sufficient cause for appearing at the time when the Petition / Application was called for Hearing , the Tribunal ( Adjudicating Authority ) can pass an Order , by setting aside the Ex parte Hearing , as against it / him or them , (after being satisfied with the reason (s) assigned, of course) on such terms, as it thinks fit. 23. In the instant case, although the Appellant / Bank , has come out with a specific plea that only due to Covid-19 Pandemic , the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
