Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2024) 12 NCLAT CK 1441

State Bank Of India vs Prem Chand Garg

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi · Decided on 20 December 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson · Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)
CASE NUMBER
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2303 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8664 of 2024; Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2309 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8683 of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 362 words

O R D E R

I.A. Nos. 8664 & 8683/2024

1.

These are Applications praying for condonation of 22 days delay in filing of the Appeal.

2.

The Order impugned was passed on 30.09.2024 and the Appeal has been e-filed on 21.11.2024.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Order was not pronounced and it was uploaded only on 22.10.2024, hence the Appellant had no occasion to know about the Order and Appeal was e-filed on 22.11.2024 i.e., within 30 days from uploading of the Order.

4.

Counsel for the Respondent does not oppose the condonation of delay.

5.

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any delay in filing the Appeal. Order has been uploaded on 22.10.2024 and the Order having not been pronounced in the Court, the delay condonation Application is allowed accordingly.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 2303 & 2309 of 2024

1.

These two Appeals have been filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) challenging the Order dated 30.09.2024 insofar as it imposes cost of Rs. 2 Lakhs on the SBI.

2.

Application under Section 95 was filed by the SBI against the Personal Guarantor. The observation which has been made by the Adjudicating Authority regarding concealment of Application pending against the Guarantors before the Principal Bench were all amputed to the Personal Guarantor and the observations which have been made in the Impugned Order are basically against the Personal Guarantor however the Adjudicating Authority imposed the cost on Applicant as well as the Personal Guarantor.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that observations made in the Order were against the Personal Guarantor who was alleged to have concealed the relevant facts and no observations were made against SBI, hence there was no occasion for imposing the cost on SBI.

4.

Learned Counsel for Respondent submits that observations made in the Order are incorrect. In the present Appeal are only concerned with the cost imposed on SBI.

5.

We find no sufficient grounds for imposing the cost on SBI. We thus allow the Appeal, set aside the cost of Rs. 2 Lakhs imposed on the SBI. Both the Appeals are disposed of.