AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
12.04.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Learned Counsel for the Respondent.
This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 15.02.2023 in CP(IB) No. 251/9/NCLT/AHM/2019. Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 1088 of 2022 was decided by this Tribunal vide Order dated 21st December, 2022 where the Appeal was allowed and following order passed in paragraph 24:
“24.In the result, we are thus of the view that ground for rejection of the Application under Section 9 of IBC was erroneous. Appeal is allowed. We set aside the Impugned Order dated 20.07.2022 and direct the Adjudicating Authority to pass an order of admission of Section 9 Application under IBC within a period of one month from the date when the copy of this order is produced and to take further steps in accordance with the law. No order as to costs.”
In pursuance of the Order of this Tribunal, CP(IB) No. 251/9/NCLT/AHM/2019 was again being considered by the Adjudicating Authority and the Orders were reserved on 31st January, 2023. I.A. No. 123/2023 also filed by the Corporate Debtor was heard. The Corporate Debtor filed an I.A. in Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 1088 of 2022 being I.A. No. 462 of 2023 where this Tribunal passed an Order on 03.02.2023 in which in paragraph 4, following order was passed:
“4.When the Adjudicating Authority has already reserved the orders, we see no reason to entertain this application or pass any direction. However, it is made clear that it is always open for the Adjudicating Authority to consider any subsequent events after passing of order of this Tribunal. With these observations, we dispose of this application.”
It appears that order dated 03.02.2023 was placed before the Adjudicating Authority and the Adjudicating Authority has now passed impugned order dated 15.02.2023. The order passed on 15.02.2023 in paragraph 5 following is stated:
“5.It appears to us that Hon’ble NCLAT allowed the Corporate Debtor to place before us new material relating to subsequent events and this Adjudicating Authority to consider the same. In view of this, now we have to re-open the main application i.e. CP(I.B) No. 251 of 2019 for hearing afresh not only relating to subsequent events but earlier matter was heard by the Special Bench and this has to be now heard by Regular Bench. Hence, we direct the Court Officer to place CP(IB) No. 251 of 2019 and all other pending IAs thereto for consideration before Regular Bench on 06.03.2023.”
From the order of the Adjudicating Authority, it appears that I.A. No. 123 of 2023 was heard and orders were reserved on 31st January, 2023 and now by impugned order after de-reserving the court has directed for hearing afresh.
From the Order it does appear that Bench which earlier heard is no longer available hence matter has been directed to be heard by a Regular Bench. We see no infirmity in the said direction. However, we make it clear that our direction above on 03.02.2023 as quoted above was only to the effect “It is always open for the Adjudicating Authority to consider any subsequent events after passing order of this Tribunal”. Meaning thereby, any event which took place after 21.12.2022 could be taken note by the Adjudicating Authority while passing appropriate order. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that subsequent events were already placed by I.A. No. 123 of 2023.
We are of the view that Order dated 15.02.2023 has to be confined to I.A. No. 123 of 2023 filed by the Corporate Debtor only and there is no occasion for any fresh hearing in CP (IB) No. 251 of 2019 which is covered by our direction issued on 21.12.2022.
With this clarification, we dispose of this Appeal.