Mr. KN Devdass Vs. Mr. Sushil Kumar Singhal IRP of Cema Electric Lighting Products India Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Subhash Chander Chauhan Vs. Kaliber Associates Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
As far as the aspect of impleadment is concerned from the perspective of the Appellant, that there was no prior notice given to him, it is an aspect which has already been dealt with, coupled with the fact since the issue of impleadment being exclusive prerogative of the court because it is the court which has to determine the necessity of the party to be introduced in the proceedings as to whether if at all it is the necessary party to decide the case effectively, we find no error in the Impugned Judgment under challenge allowing the Impleadment Application.
Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) When the Appellant failed to participate in the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority despite reasonable opportunity having been afforded to the Appellant, the impugned order cannot be said to have been vitiated on grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice.
(ii) Once payment of interest had been shown from the Corporate Debtor in Form 26AS and Form No. 26AS entries correspond to the claim of financial debt, the said document becomes another piece of evidence to prove that it was a financial debt.
(iii) The judgement of this Tribunal in Pawan Kumar (2021) ibclaw.in 368 NCLAT was applicable only in the context of a NBFC.
(iv) Since the loan had been given on the basis of an oral agreement and was admittedly repayable on demand, there was no need to issue any written notice on the Corporate Debtor seeking repayment.
Hon’ble NCLAT held that from Rule 49(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, it is clear that where a petition or an application has been heard ex-parte against a respondent or respondents, such respondent or respondents may apply to the Tribunal for an order to set it aside and if such respondent or respondents satisfies the Tribunal that the notice was not duly served, or that he or they were prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing (when the petition or the application was called) for hearing. The second ground on which order can be recalled is where he or they were prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing. Present is not a case where it can be said that the corporate debtor was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Marshall Machines Ltd. Vs. DN Solutions Co. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) Rule 49(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 entitles the Respondent to apply to the Tribunal for an order to set aside the order of ex-parte hearing, if such Respondent satisfies the Tribunal that the notice was not duly served, or that he or they were prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing, the Tribunal may make an order setting aside the ex-parte hearing against him or them, upon such terms as it thinks fit.
(ii) It is clear from Rule 49, sub-rule (2) that ex-parte order can be recalled on two grounds, firstly, when notice was not served or that the Respondent/ Applicant was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the Application was called for hearing.
(iii) The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order, rejected the Recall Application holding that no sufficient case was shown for exercising the power under Rule 49 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Megapix Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Spasht Marketing Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Bhimsen Apat Vs. Kalinga Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »