2019 (8) TMI 1525 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Stay on pronouncement of the order in the main company petition - on the ground that the respondent/corporate debtor has preferred a writ petition - respondent/financial creditor opposed the application contending that the corporate debtor already filed another writ petition before the hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong and withdrawn the same and suppressing the above fact once again filed the above referred writ petition before the Principal Bench of the hon'ble Gauhati High Court - HELD THAT - The hon'ble Gauhati High Court in its order merely directed the petitioner to serve copy of the writ petition by hand to the Branch Manager of the financial creditor and intimate him about the pendency of the writ petition and the next date of hearing. While ordering the said notice to the respondent-bank in the above writ petition, the hon'ble High Court directed both the parties in the writ petition to maintain status quo. The said order does not contain any direction to this Tribunal in this regard. The corporate debtor is conscious of the fact that this Tribunal may pass final orders in all the matters of the group companies relating to the corporate debtor at any time after August 20, 2019. In the absence of such specific order to this Tribunal, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that pronouncement of the orders by the Tribunal is justified - there are no merits in the application filed by the corporate debtor - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Application for stay of order based on writ petition filed by corporate debtor.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application filed by the corporate debtor seeking a stay on the pronouncement of the order in the main company petition. The corporate debtor had filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court, which directed the petitioner to serve a copy of the writ petition to the Branch Manager of the financial creditor and maintain status quo until a specified date. The financial creditor vehemently opposed the application, highlighting that the corporate debtor had previously withdrawn a writ petition filed before the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong and then filed the current writ petition. The Tribunal had heard arguments in the company petition earlier and reserved the matter for orders. The corporate debtor had requested an adjournment based on approaching the financial creditor for settlement. The Tribunal had assured both parties that orders would not be passed before a specified date unless informed otherwise. As no communication was received by the specified date, the Tribunal prepared the orders for pronouncement.

The Tribunal observed that the Gauhati High Court's order did not contain any specific direction to the Tribunal regarding the pronouncement of orders in the company petition. Considering the circumstances and the absence of a specific order from the High Court, the Tribunal deemed it justified to proceed with the pronouncement of orders in the main company petition. The Tribunal found no merits in the application filed by the corporate debtor and subsequently rejected it, proceeding to pronounce the orders in the main company petition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application for stay filed by the corporate debtor, emphasizing that the pronouncement of orders in the main company petition was justified based on the facts and circumstances presented. The judgment underscores the importance of specific directions and considerations in legal proceedings, affirming the Tribunal's authority to proceed with the case in the absence of explicit instructions to the contrary.