AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These are an applications filed by the appellant praying for condonation of 15 days delay in filing of the appeal.
The order was passed on 07.05.2025 and this appeal has been filed on 21.06.2025.
The reason given was that on 07.05.2025 there was a dissent between two Members and the registry placed the matter before the President for constitution of third Member Bench which was done and matter was heard. A referral order was passed only on 26.05.2025 and the appellant could not file the appeal against the order dated 07.05.2025. It was further stated that counsel for the appellant was travelling from 13.05.2025 till 18.05.2025 during the summer vacations in the Appellate Tribunal.
Counsel for the Bank appears and opposed the application.
We find that sufficient cause has been given in the delay condonation applications which is well within the condonable period.
Delay condoned.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 930 – 932/2025
Heard counsel for the appellant and learned counsel Mr. Ashok Mishra appearing for the Canara Bank.
This appeal has been filed against an order dated 07.05.2025 passed in C.P. (IB) No. 355(AHM)/2024, C.P. (IB) No. 356(AHM)/2024 & C.P. (IB) No. 357(AHM)/2024. Common order dated 07.05.2025 was passed, there being difference of opinion between Judicial Member and Technical Member. Order dated 07.05.2025 is as follows:
“The case is listed today for pronouncement of order. The members are dissenting on following points:
(a)Whether Personal Guarantors can be admitted/rejected into PIRP on merits?
The Registry is directed to place the record before the Hon'ble President under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 for constitution of appropriate 3rd Member for his opinion, so that the order in CP(IB) 355 of 2024, CP(IB) 356 of 2024 and CP(IB) 357 of 2024 is rendered in accordance with the opinion of majority.”
In the appeal detailed judgment delivered by Judicial Member dated 07.05.2025 has been brought on the record. Judicial Member after hearing the financial creditor and the personal guarantor who were appellant before us opined that C.P. (IB) No. 355(AHM)/2024, C.P. (IB) No. 356(AHM)/2024 & C.P. (IB) No. 357(AHM)/2024 are to be rejected, whereas, Technical Member after hearing the parties recorded its conclusion at Page 121 to following effect:
“1.Applications are allowed.
2.RP be appointed to submit the report making all lenders a party by issuing notices to file their reply. RP to form an opinion and submits report based on the reply of the PG. Since this is a guarantee favouring all financial creditors RPs report to be served on all the lenders who whom the applicant is made party including any other whom RP may identify based on the petitioner/reply.”
There being difference of opinion between two Members, the reference was made on 07.05.2025 as extracted above to the President who has referred the matter to the third Member. Third Member has already commenced the hearing and matter was heard on 05.06.2025, 19.06.2025, 25.06.2025, 01.07.2025, 03.07.2025 and now the matter is fixed for 17.07.2025.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 the point of difference of opinion between Judicial Member and Technical Member ought to have been specifically noticed to enable the third Member to give his answer on the points of difference. The judgments of both Judicial Member and Technical Member are detailed and part of the record and question framed is as to whether personal guarantors can be admitted/rejected into CIRP on merits.
Third Member having commenced the hearing to answer the question, we see no reason at this stage to entertain the appeal.
Giving liberty to both the parties to raise their issues after final opinion is expressed by third Member and order is passed by the adjudicating authority, we close the appeal.
As per Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, it goes without saying the opinion has to be expressed by third Member on the point of difference between the Judicial Member and the Technical Member.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.