9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 1014 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyDismissal of application under Section 7 of IBC, for the resolution on the ground of limitation - the order was upheld by this Tribunal but the Hon ble Supreme Court set aside the order of this Tribunal and remanded the appeal back to this Tribunal and restored the same, permitting the financial creditors (Bank) to file an application to amend Section 7 application - HELD THAT - The fact remains that while allowing the appeal, the Hon ble Supreme Court has remanded the appeal and restored the same to this Tribunal and permitted the present Respondent (FC) to make amendment in the application filed under Section 7 of the Code. It is no where mentioned by the Hon ble Supreme Court that the application had to be filed before the Adjudicating Authority. Since, the matter was pending before the Adjudicating Authority at that time, after restoration of the appeal by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the application has rightly been filed before this Tribunal for seeking amendment in Section 7 application. In so far as, the allegation of the Applicant that some application was also filed before the Adjudicating Authority for amendment, firstly, it was only a memo and secondly, no proceedings were pending at that time before the Adjudicating Authority, therefore, the application has rightly been filed before this Tribunal where the proceedings were pending and there is no error in the statement made by Counsel which has been recorded in the order dated 11.01.2022 which is sought to be labelled as fraudulent. As a matter of fact, the application under Section 7 was admitted on 05.06.2023 which was further challenged by the present applicant by way of an appeal i.e. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 184 of 2023 and dismissed with a detailed order on 16.10.2023, therefore, the only recourse available to the Appellant is to challenge the order dated 16.10.2023 by way of further appeal but in so far as the recalling application is concerned, it is totally misconceived and the same is thus hereby dismissed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the case are the recalling of a judgment passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the filing of an application for amendment under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the allegations of fraud in obtaining an order. Recalling of Judgment: The Appellant filed an application for recalling the judgment dated 16.10.2023, which dismissed their appeal. The application was made invoking Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. The Appellant alleged that the Respondent obtained the order dated 11.01.2022 by playing fraud. The Appellant argued that the application for amendment under Section 7 should have been filed before the Adjudicating Authority, not before the Tribunal. The Respondent countered by stating that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the filing of the application before the Tribunal, as the matter was pending there. The Tribunal found no merit in the fraud allegations and dismissed the recalling application. Amendment Application under Section 7: The Financial Creditor filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against the Corporate Debtor for the resolution of a substantial amount. The initial application was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Subsequent appeals and orders led to the remand of the matter back to the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the amendment of the application to include acknowledgment of debt in the balance sheets of the Corporate Debtor. The application for amendment was filed before the Tribunal and was allowed on 11.01.2022. The Tribunal upheld the legitimacy of the amendment application and the subsequent orders passed in relation to it. Allegations of Fraud: The Appellant alleged that the Respondent obtained an order by playing fraud, as the application for amendment should have been filed before the Adjudicating Authority. The Respondent refuted the fraud claims, stating that the application was rightfully filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found no fraudulent activity and emphasized that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not specify the filing location for the amendment application. The Tribunal dismissed the fraud allegations and affirmed the validity of the proceedings related to the amendment application.
|
