9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsuant to issuance of notice vide order dated 02.01.2019, neither did respondent no. 1 file process fee for issuance of summons in terms of the said order, nor was the same served upon the appellant. Thus the judgment which was reserved on 08.01.2019 by the NCLAT, and consequently pronounced, was done without hearing the appellant and the observation of the NCLAT that all the parties were heard is erroneous. In fact, even the impugned order does not note the appearance of the counsels on behalf of appellant herein. Rule 48 of the NCLAT Rules clearly stipulates service of notice on the other side, pursuant to issuance of notice by the NCLAT in the appeal, regardless of supply of advance copy of appeal paperbook prior to the issuance of no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal before the NCLAT nor been given a hearing before it. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the impugned order passed by the NCLAT is contrary to law as it failed to comply with the procedure laid down under the NCLAT Rules, 2016 [ NCLAT Rules ], specifically Rule 48, which clearly provides that pursuant to issuance of notice by the NCLAT, the copy of the appeal and documents filed therewith, if any, shall be served along with the notice on the other side. He further submitted that though notice was directed to be issued by the NCLAT, the same was never received by the appellant herein and the NCLAT passed order without hearing the appellant, erroneously noting that it has heard all the parties. 4. On the other hand, Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that it is a fit case for admission. (emphasis supplied) 6. It is to be noted that in the rejoinder affidavit before us the appellant has submitted that, pursuant to issuance of notice vide order dated 02.01.2019, neither did respondent no. 1 file process fee for issuance of summons in terms of the said order, nor was the same served upon the appellant. Thus the judgment which was reserved on 08.01.2019 by the NCLAT, and consequently pronounced, was done without hearing the appellant and the observation of the NCLAT that all the parties were heard is erroneous. In fact, even the impugned order does not note the appearance of the counsels on behalf of appellant herein. 7. While the respondent no. 1 has submitted that an advanced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial placed before us do not indicate that the aforementioned stipulation has been complied with. As per the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant, the counsel for the appellant had undertaken a search of the register of process fee and summons, and the concerned file in the office of the NCLAT on 28.02.2019. However, no record of respondent no. 1 having paid the process fee for issuance and service of notice to the appellant was found. 11. Thus, in view of the above position, it is abundantly clear that no notice was served upon the appellant before the NCLAT as stipulated under the rules, and the right of the appellant to be heard, audi alteram partem, has been violated [See: Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Machhla Dev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
