2019 (8) TMI 1382 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Continuation of insolvency proceedings - abatement of proceedings - party became insolvent, but no formal application filed for continuation of proceedings - continuation of proceedings before this Tribunal in compliance with Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - HELD THAT - A plain reading of Rule 22 makes it clear that for the proceedings to be continued by the company, necessary applications required to be filed to continue the proceedings by the successor or liquidator as the case may be, within sixty days of the occurrence of the event. In the present case, even though the insolvency proceedings has been started in 2017 and Resolution Professional has been appointed, no formal application has been filed to continue the proceedings before this forum - appeals abated.

Summary

Issues:
Abatement of appeals due to failure to file necessary applications for continuation of proceedings in compliance with Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved the issue of abatement of appeals due to the failure to file necessary applications for the continuation of proceedings as per Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The appellant's advocate, Shri Sanjeev Sambasivan, representing the appellant companies, informed the tribunal that insolvency proceedings had been initiated against the companies, and a resolution professional had been appointed by the NCLT. However, due to not being provided with necessary papers, no formal applications were filed to defend the appeal before the tribunal, seeking more time for filing the applications.

The Authorized Representative for the Revenue argued that despite the NCLT order being passed in 2017, no action had been taken to continue the proceedings before the tribunal in compliance with Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The tribunal acknowledged the contention of the Authorized Representative, emphasizing the importance of Rule 22 which specifies the requirement for necessary applications to be filed within sixty days of the occurrence of events like insolvency proceedings for the proceedings to be continued by the company through the successor or liquidator.

The tribunal noted that in the present case, despite the initiation of insolvency proceedings in 2017 and the appointment of a Resolution Professional, no formal application had been filed to continue the proceedings before the forum. Consequently, the tribunal held that the appeals were abated due to the failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The judgment highlights the significance of timely filing of necessary applications to ensure the continuation of proceedings in cases involving events like insolvency or winding up of companies, as mandated by the procedural rules governing such matters.