9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 130 - SC - IBCSeeking to challenge the order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai - rejection of Section 7 application due to a delay in filing a rejoinder affidavit - HELD THAT - Both NCLT and NCLAT committed an egregious error in taking a very technical or rather pedantic view of the matter. Having permitted the Bank to file their rejoinder after condoning the delay it was too much for the NCLT to say that the Bank shall not be permitted to rely on any assertions made in the rejoinder. It was expected of the NCLAT to correct such an error. Unfortunately the Appellate Tribunal also fell into the same error. Appeal allowed.
The Supreme Court heard a Statutory Appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) filed by the State Bank of India challenging the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which affirmed the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad. The appeal arose from the NCLT's decision to reject the Bank's Section 7 application due to a delay in filing a rejoinder affidavit. The key issues considered in this case are the condonation of delay in filing the rejoinder affidavit, the interpretation of Rule 42 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, and the permissibility of filing additional documents in an IBC application.The Court considered the relevant legal framework and precedents, including Rule 42 of the NCLT Rules and the decision in Dena Bank vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy and Another (2021) 10 SCC 330. The Court emphasized that there is no bar in law to amending pleadings or filing additional documents in an IBC application until a final order is passed. The Court criticized the NCLT and NCLAT for taking a technical view and not allowing the Bank to rely on assertions made in the rejoinder affidavit.The Court found that both the NCLT and NCLAT erred in not allowing the Bank to rely on the rejoinder affidavit and set aside the NCLAT's order. The Court directed the matter to go back to the NCLT for fresh consideration of the Section 7 application, emphasizing that the application should be decided strictly in accordance with the law on its own merits. The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the NCLAT's order, and directed the NCLT to reconsider the Bank's Section 7 application in accordance with the law. The Court's decision emphasized the importance of allowing parties to present their case fully and not taking a technical or pedantic view of procedural matters.
|
