NCLT/NCLAT-Ex-parte Orders

Whether prior to implead Holding Company as additional Corporate Debtor in the application u/s 9 of IBC, a prior notice is required to be issued to Holding Company? – Inkel Ltd. Vs. Shaji Mathew and Anr. – NCLAT Chennai

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.

Whether prior to implead Holding Company as additional Corporate Debtor in the application u/s 9 of IBC, a prior notice is required to be issued to Holding Company? – Inkel Ltd. Vs. Shaji Mathew and Anr. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Form 26AS becomes another piece of evidence to prove that it was a Financial Debt, 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 – Jaiprakash Agarwal Vs. Alka Prakash Agarwal and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

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.

Form 26AS becomes another piece of evidence to prove that it was a Financial Debt, 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 – Jaiprakash Agarwal Vs. Alka Prakash Agarwal and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

NCLT Rule 49 gives ample jurisdiction to Adjudicating Authority to proceed for ex parte as Corporate Debtor does not appear | “Appearance” as contemplated under Rule 49(1) of NCLT Rules, 2016 is appearance by Corporate Debtor or by an Authorised Representative – Ashok Tiwari Vs. DBS Bank India (Ltd.) and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

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.

NCLT Rule 49 gives ample jurisdiction to Adjudicating Authority to proceed for ex parte as Corporate Debtor does not appear | “Appearance” as contemplated under Rule 49(1) of NCLT Rules, 2016 is appearance by Corporate Debtor or by an Authorised Representative – Ashok Tiwari Vs. DBS Bank India (Ltd.) and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

When a party appears on a date which is fixed before the Court, it is presumed that the party is well aware of the proceedings, which was taken up by the Court on the said date – Srigopal Choudhary Vs. SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

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.

When a party appears on a date which is fixed before the Court, it is presumed that the party is well aware of the proceedings, which was taken up by the Court on the said date – Srigopal Choudhary Vs. SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top