9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 676 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintenance of status quo - main petition has not yet been considered - difference of opinion - HELD THAT - The effect of the proceeding is that the main Company Petition has not been finally heard due to the facts noticed in the order of both Division Bench and Single Member. The order of this Tribunal dated 24.08.2020 is clear that the matter is to be placed before a Bench comprising of Judicial Member or Technical Member, therefore, the matter ought to have been placed before a Bench comprising of Judicial Member or Technical Member for deciding the main Company Petition. The original order dated 30.01.2020 clearly records that the Judicial Member has recused, hence that order cannot be read any difference of opinion. After refusal there are no two opinions available to find out any difference of opinion. The matter has to be listed before a Bench consisting of Judicial Member and Technical Member as has already been held by this Tribunal in its judgment dated 24.08.2020 - the Learned President of the NCLT may take appropriate Administrative decision for listing the matter before a Bench consisting of Judicial Member and Technical Member. The copy of this order be placed by the Registrar before the Hon ble President for passing appropriate order within a week from today. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has noticed the aforesaid fact that matter is still awaiting order of the President, hence, during this status quo has to be maintained. There are no reason to entertain this Appeal against the said order which is order of interim nature and is subject to any further order passed by the Adjudicating Authority - Appeal is disposed off.
Issues:
1. Appeal against the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. Recusal of a Judicial Member and its impact on the proceedings. 3. Request for listing the matter before a Bench comprising a Judicial Member and a Technical Member. 4. Questioning the order of status quo passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, noting that the main matter was referred to the third Bench by the Hon'ble President, and further orders were required pending the hearing of the main application. The State Bank of India, being aggrieved by this order, filed the appeal. The appellant raised concerns about the various orders and proceedings related to the main proceeding, highlighting that the order of status quo had been passed while the main petition was pending consideration. The Single Bench had observed the need to list the matter before the appropriate Bench. 2. The judgment detailed the recusal of a Judicial Member from the case due to personal reasons, leading to the request for the Registry to arrange for another Judicial Member to hear the matter alongside the Technical Member. Subsequent orders and notifications were issued to address the composition of the Bench, emphasizing the importance of having both a Judicial Member and a Technical Member for the disposal of the case. 3. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of listing the matter before a Bench consisting of both a Judicial Member and a Technical Member, as previously held in a judgment dated 24.08.2020. The Tribunal highlighted that after the recusal of the Judicial Member, there were no grounds for a difference of opinion, and the matter should have been heard by a Bench with the required composition. The Tribunal directed the President of the NCLT to take appropriate administrative action to list the matter before the correct Bench. 4. The judgment addressed the appellant's challenge to the order of status quo passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal noted that the order was of an interim nature and subject to further orders by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal, instructing the Registrar to present the order before the President for appropriate action regarding listing the main Company Petition before the correct Bench. The Tribunal allowed the appellant to request further orders, including the vacation of the interim order if necessary.
|
