K Paramasivam & Anr. vs Aneetha Subramaniam

The Appellant challenges the impugned order dated 19.02.2025, as it was passed in IA(IBC)/306(CHE)2025, that was preferred by the Respondent Liquidator in CP/IBC/1314/CHE/2018. In the Application, thus preferred by the Respondent, the Respondent had prayed for the grant of certain directions as against the Appellant, for the purposes to call him to cooperate with the Respondent in the auction process, which is likely to be conducted, and secondly, the subject matter which will be presently of much concern is the relief no.2, where the Respondent had sought a direction against the Appellant to provide bills, vouchers, invoices, receipts and such other documents, which are said to be necessary to prove the authenticity of the assets which has to be placed as the subject matter of auction.

The Application was preferred by the Respondent on 16.02.2025, before the Learned NCLT. The solitary ground that has been raised by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant in this Appeal, is that, the impugned order has been passed on the same day without providing any opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. Since, the Learned Tribunal has granted the relief, which has been prayed for in the aforesaid IA, it materially prejudice his rights. He submits that, at least the Tribunal was expected to provide an opportunity to the Appellant to have his say, qua the relief, which was sought for by the Respondent in the Application, thus preferred.

Heard Learned Counsel for the Respondent, he was called up on to answer the findings which has been recorded by the Tribunal with regards to the opportunity of hearing being provided to the Appellant, because the direction which has been given in the impugned order will be having a civil consequence and as such, the Appellant was necessarily required to be heard. In response to it, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that, the nature of the order, that has been rendered in the context of relief no.2, as it has been prayed for in the application, that, has to be harmoniously read with relief no.1 and as such no opportunity was required to be granted by the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order dated 19.02.2025.

We are in respectful disagreement with the argument extended by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent, for the reason being that, the two reliefs which have been sought for in the IA, have got their independent implication, and in that eventuality, particularly in the context of relief no.2, sought by the Appellant, it was required that Appellant was to be heard at least, prior to passing of any order by the Tribunal, so that, he may have his say as to, what was the necessity of the document, which was directed to be called up on by the Tribunal. Since, apparently there is no finding recorded in the impugned order that, the Appellant was heard, the impugned order dated 19.02.2025, would hereby stand quashed, the Company Appeal would stand allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Learned NCLT, Chennai, to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant on the interlocutory application and decide the IA(IBC)306(CHE)2025, as fresh within a period of one week from the date of service of the copy of this order by the Appellant or by the Respondent, whichever is earlier.