TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso not considered the aspect of Angina, the possibility of the Cardiologist, likely to rule out the possibility of any Thrombosis and advised to rest for Two Days. In this connection, this Tribunal, pertinently points out that the Adjudicating Authority/ Tribunal in the Impugned Order, had not said anything expressly or impliedly about the Prolonged Angina, of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant s/ Petitioner s Medical suffering. This Tribunal is of the considered view that the Impugned Order is bereft of Qualitative and Quantitative reasons, thereby leading to the miscarriage of Justice. Furthermore, it is the Prime Duty of an Adjudicating Authority/ Appellate Tribunal/ Competent Court of Law, whenever, it deals with an Application a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 377 of 2023. Notice to the Respondent , sent through Speed Post , by the Office of the Registry , got returned with an endorsement, Left without Instructions- Returned to Sender . Considering the fact that according to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant , the Notice , which was sent to the Respondent , is to the Proper and Correct address, as found in the Adjudicating Authority s/ Tribunal s Records and also in the Ministry of Corporate Affair s Records , this Tribunal , without any haziness, holds that the Service is held Sufficient . The Respondent , is called Absent and the Instant Appeal , is proceeded further by this Tribunal , for passing Judgement . The Learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 598/7/HDB/201. Due to some Medical Difficulty , suffered by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant , a request was made for an Adjournment , through a Memo , enclosing in and by which he was advised to take two (2) days rest. Despite a Bonafide Request, for Adjournment , made by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant , the main C.P. (IB) No. 598/7/HDB/2019, came to be Dismissed , for Non-Prosecution , by the Adjudicating Authority / National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench , with an incorrect Observation that the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant (Financial Creditor), had made an unsubstantiated request for an Adjournment , inspite of the fact that he had furnished written advice, by the Physician to take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Cardiologist , would like to rule out the possibility of any Thrombosis and advised to rest for two (2) days and finally, it was submitted that there was no intentional non appearance by the Counsel for the Petitioner . Therefore, a date was prayed for, in a sympathetic manner for Final Hearing of the main Petition , instead of dismissing the same . A Cursory Perusal of the Impugned Order , dated 31/05/2022 in IA/(IBC)482/2022 in main C.P.(IB) No. 598/7/HDB/2019, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Court No II) indicates that the Adjudicating Authority / National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Court - II had not spelt out anything about the Contents of the Memo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity / Tribunal / Competent Court of Law . Considering the fact that the Impugned Order , dated 31/05/2022, in IBA(IBC)/482/2022 in C.P.(IB)598/7/HDB/2019, suffers from Serious Legal Infirmities and not dealt with the points, raised in the Contents of Memo , dated 28/04/2022, one way or the other, in the instant subject matter in issue. As such, this Tribunal is perforced to interfere with the Impugned Order , dated 31/05/2022 in IBA(IBC)/482/2022 in C.P.(IB)598/7/HDB/2019 and sets aside the same, in the interest of Justice , subject to the condition that the Appellant , shall pay a Cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Rupees Only), to the Hon ble Prime Minister s National Relief Fund, of course, within a period of 8 Weeks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
