9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 1260 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyAdmission of application filed under section 7 of IBC - ex-parte Order was admitted - HELD THAT - There was no response at all from the side of the present applicant even after service of notice at the address recorded in the applicant Company Master Data, this Tribunal admitted the main Company Petition. This Tribunal, being a Quasi-Judicial Authority, has no power to review or set aside its own Company Petition Admission Order as per settled proposition of Law. Hence, the prayer made in this IA to set aside the Order of Admission of the Application filed under Section 7 of IBC by this Bench on 18.03.2020, is not legally sustainable and accordingly stands rejected. Application for setting aside the order of admission is dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to ex-parte order under Section 7 of IBC due to non-service of notice and Covid-19 restrictions. Analysis: The IA was filed by the applicant, challenging the ex-parte order dated 18.03.2020 admitting the application under Section 7 of the IBC by the FC - Bank of India. The applicant alleged that the notice of the proceeding was posted at the wrong address of the Company, and the CD only became aware of the proceedings through its counsel in New Delhi on 17.03.2020. The CD claimed that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, institutions and offices were closed, and they obtained notice from the website, presuming only urgent matters would be heard. The CD argued that the ex-parte order was passed without considering the report of the postal department, which indicated that notice was not served upon the CD. The CD contended that setting aside the ex-parte order was necessary to allow them to defend their case. The CD further argued that the ex-parte order failed to consider the notice issued by the Bench on 15.03.2020, advising that only urgent matters would be heard due to Covid-19 restrictions. The CD emphasized the importance of the Principle of Natural Justice, specifically the right to be heard, and claimed that not setting aside the ex-parte order would violate this principle. The CD highlighted that failure to set aside the order would result in irreparable loss and prejudice to their defense. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the FC had sent the petition copy to the CD via email and served the notice at the correct address as per the Master Data of the applicant Company. Despite this, the CD did not respond, leading to the ex-parte order admission on 18.03.2020. The Tribunal found that the CD had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands, as they conveniently omitted to acknowledge the notice sent via email. The Tribunal emphasized that service of notice via email or WhatsApp is considered valid as per legal precedents. As a Quasi-Judicial Authority, the Tribunal stated it had no power to review or set aside its own Company Petition Admission Order, leading to the rejection of the IA challenging the ex-parte order. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of IA No.45 of 2020 without costs, as the challenge to set aside the ex-parte order was deemed legally unsustainable based on the service of notice and the CD's failure to respond appropriately to the proceedings.
|
