RKV Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs Investment Manager of L & T Infra Investment Partners

Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant – Corporate Debtor challenging the order dated 16.06.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 220/JPR/2022. Appellant has filed the I.A. praying for recall of order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The order was passed on 23.01.2023, which is quoted in Para 3 of the order, where registry was directed to add the amended cause title in the main Company Petition and showcase the name of the Applicant henceforth in the cause list as Investment Manager of L&T Infra Investment Partners.

Learned  counsel  for  the  Appellant  submits  that  the  Adjudicating Authority on 23.01.2023 has reserved the order and order was never pronounced and he became aware of the order only on 13.03.2023 and then application was filed on 23.03.2023. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has pronounced on locus standi of the applicant while directing amendment of the cause title, which issue is yet to be considered and decided, at the time of final hearing of the Company Petition.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.

The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has categorically noted that the order was not reserved on 23.01.2023 and it was uploaded on the very next day. When the order was uploaded on the next day, as observed in the impugned order and there is no material to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant that order was reserved on 23.01.2023, we are of the view that no infirmity has been committed by not pronouncing the order in open court.

It is well settled that if order is reserved, it has to be pronounced in the open court. However, we can take no different view than as has been taken by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order.

Insofar as amendment of the cause title, it is always open for the Appellant to contend at the time of final hearing of the petition that locus of the applicant is not there. This question has to be examined and decided by the Adjudicating Authority at the time of final hearing. We express no opinion on the merits of any of the contentions. With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.