2017 (10) TMI 1406 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Service of Advance Copy of application - delivery of the postal article - non-service due to change in address - Held that - Now issue bailable warrants against respondents No.2 and 3 in the sum of ₹ 10,000/- (with one surety of the like amount) for their appearance for 06.11.2017. The applicant is directed to collect bailable warrants from the registry and it be delivered to the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana to get the same executed. Mr. J.S. Miglani, respondent No.4 seeks time to file reply to the instant application.

Summary

Issues involved: Alleged non-cooperation by respondents, direction under sections 19(2) and 19(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, refusal to accept delivery, non-compliance with instructions of Resolution Professional, issuance of bailable warrants.

The judgment by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh, addresses the issue of alleged non-cooperation by the respondents towards the Resolution Professional. The petitioner sent an advance copy of the application to all four respondents, including the Company, via Speed Post. While track reports confirmed delivery to the corporate debtor and Mr. J.S. Miglani, who claimed to represent the company, respondents No.2 and 3, Neeraj Mahajan and Ravi Mahajan, refused to accept the postal article, indicating a lack of cooperation.

Subsequently, notices were directed to be served on respondents No.2 and 3, and respondent No.4 was instructed to appear in person. However, the notices were returned as Neeraj Mahajan and Ravi Mahajan were reported to have left the address. These reports were submitted along with the compliance affidavit of the applicant on 06.10.2017, highlighting the respondents' non-compliance with the instructions of the Resolution Professional.

During the last hearing, Mr. Harinder Pal Singh, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the respondents and filed a Memo of Appearance, stating that the Power of Attorney would be submitted later. The Tribunal then directed respondents No.2 and 3 to file their affidavits confirming compliance with the Resolution Professional's instructions; failure to do so would require their personal appearance.

The Tribunal, in response to the situation, decided to issue bailable warrants against respondents No.2 and 3, with a sum of &8377;10,000/- each, along with one surety of the same amount, for their appearance on 06.11.2017. The applicant was instructed to collect these warrants from the registry and deliver them to the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, for execution. Respondent No.4, Mr. J.S. Miglani, requested additional time to file a reply to the application, and the Tribunal directed that the reply be submitted with an advance copy to the opposing counsel at least two days before the specified date.