AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
09.01.2026 : Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
This appeal has been filed against an order dated 19.12.2025 by which order Section 9 application filed by the operational creditor has been admitted.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that the notices were issued on 09.12.2025 giving 7 days’ time to the corporate debtor after service of notice and order was passed even before expiry of 7 days.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that appellant did not appear before the adjudicating authority, hence adjudicating authority proceeded to pass the order.
We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By order dated 09.12.2025, notices were issued, which order is as follows:
“This is an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "IBC, 2016") read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "IB (AAA) Rules, 2016") for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Respondent, to appoint Interim Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred to as "IRP") and declare the moratorium for having defaulted in payment of operational debt.
It is stated by the Applicant that advance copy of the Application in terms of Rule 6 of IB (AAA) Rules, 2016 has already been served on the Respondent.
Let notice be issued to the Respondent by the Registry, returnable by next date. The Applicant is directed to collect the notice from the Registry within three days and serve upon the Respondent along with copy of this order through Registered Ad post / Speed-post/ Dasti mode as well as on the registered email ID of the Respondent registered with the MCA within seven days.
The Respondent may file reply, if any, within seven days from the date of receipt of notice. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing, thereafter.
Proof of Service be filed by way of an affidavit before the next date of hearing. List the matter on 19.12.2025.”
In paragraph 8 of the impugned order, adjudicating authority itself has noticed that the notice was received on 13.12.2025. Paragraph 8 of the impugned order is as follows:
“8.On issuance of the notice, a service report was filed by the Operational Creditor on 17.12.2025 vide Inward No. D-5443; a notice was received by the director of Corporate Debtor on 13.12.2025 with acknowledgement; notice was also served through e-mode on 17.12.2025. Hence, Service was considered sufficient and complete through e-mode and Dasti Mode u/Rule 23 of IB (AAA) Rules, 2016. However, despite service, no appearance or reply filed by Corporate Debtor; sufficient opportunity provided. Hence, right to file reply is closed and proceeded ex-parte.”
When the notice was received according to the adjudicating authority itself on 13.12.2025 and 7 days’ time was granted to file the reply, we fail to see any reason for admitting the Section 9 application on 19.12.2025 before expiry of 7 days. Thus, the order impugned deserves to be set aside on this ground alone.
In result, appeal is allowed. Order dated 19.12.2025 is set aside. Appellant is allowed a week’s time to file the reply before the adjudicating authority. Adjudicating authority may proceed to pass fresh order in accordance with law.