2020 (2) TMI 1475 - SCH - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - application dismissed on the ground that the documents which were placed on record indicated that there was prior dispute as well as on the ground of limitation and laches - HELD THAT - The issue of limitation and other issues have not been adverted to in detail by the NCLAT. It was incumbent upon the NCLAT, while reversing the order, to revert to the reasonings employed by the NCLT in its order, which has not been done. Let NCLAT consider all the documents, which were placed on record and reasons given by NCLT and thereafter render a reasoned decision, in accordance with law. The impugned order passed by NCLAT is set aside. We request the NCLAT to decide the matter afresh unfettered by any observation made in this order or in the order passed by it earlier. Let the decision of the appeal be expedited. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Dismissal of application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) due to prior dispute, limitation, and laches.
- Lack of detailed consideration of limitation and other issues by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
- Necessity for NCLAT to review all documents and reasons before making a reasoned decision.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah, reviewed a case where the NCLT had dismissed an application under Section 9 of the IBC citing prior dispute, limitation, and laches. The NCLAT, in its impugned order, did not delve into the issue of limitation and other matters in detail, failing to address the reasoning of the NCLT adequately. The Court noted that the NCLAT did not consider the documents supporting its decision, as pointed out by the respondents' counsel, Mr. Amit Sibal. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT's order and directed a fresh consideration of all documents and reasons by the NCLAT to arrive at a reasoned decision in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized that the NCLAT should decide the matter anew without any influence from the previous orders, expediting the appeal process. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.