Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (12) TMI 1809

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... absent then this Adjudicating Authority leaves with no option but to pass CIRP order ex-parte. This has exactly happened in this case. The order of admission of Corporate Debtor in CIRP has serious consequences. In this case, Advocate of Corporate Debtor did not appear in the matter and hence, this Adjudicating Authority passed order ex-parte. In fact it was duty of the Advocate of Corporate Debtor to inform this Adjudicating Authority that she has not been instructed by the Corporate Debtor to appear on their behalf. In such a situation, this Adjudicating Authority would have issued notice afresh to the Corporate Debtor - for the fault of Advocate, the Corporate Debtor should not suffer and hence,the exparte passed against the Corporate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... been duly served on them (para 13 of application). However, in next paragraph at para 14, they further stated that the advocate appointed by them did not appear before this Adjudicating Authority on 27.08.2018 and thereafter also. As the advocate appointed by them did not appear in the matter the order of admission of CIRP is passed ex-parte. According to them, they have good case on merit. They have raised dispute about the goods supplied and the amount claimed by replying the Operational Creditor's notice. They have also filed complaint about the claim raised by Operational Creditor at local police station. They prayed that due to the fault of their advocate, they should not be made to suffer CIRP. 4. I called upon the Operational .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... may apply to the Tribunal for an order to set it aside and if such respondent or respondents satisfies the Tribunal that the notice was not duly served, or that he or they were prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing (when the petition or the application was called) for hearing, the Tribunal may make an order setting aside the ex-parte hearing as against him or them upon such terms as it thinks fit: Provided that where the ex-parte hearing of the petition or application is of such nature that it cannot be set aside as against one respondent only, it may be set aside as against all or any of the other respondents also. 6. Careful reading of above Rule makes it clear that the Tribunal i.e. this Adjudicating Authority as per S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o contest the claim by setting aside ex-parte order passed against them. As against this, Ld. Advocate for the Operational Creditor submitted that it is easy to blame the Advocate on record. One does not know whether Corporate Debtor had given instruction to the Advocate to appear in the matter or not. The record reveals that Corporate Debtor adopted all sort of delay tactics. In such situation, ex-parte order passed against them may not be set aside. 10. I have considered the submissions of both Ld. Counsel made that the bar. At the outset, I make it clear that at present, I am not going into controversy whether the Corporate Debtor have good case to defend or not. I only consider whether there are sufficient ground to set aside ex-part .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... further with CIRP because Corporate Debtor was intending to challenge the order passed by this Adjudicating Authority by way of appeal. Accordingly, this Authority had adjourned the matter. It appears from record that even prior to that, the Corporate Debtor had filed appeal baring no. 607/2018. This fact was not disclosed to this Authority. Once this Authority direct IRP not to proceed for 7 days, the Corporate Debtor conveniently withdraw the appeal and has filed this application before this Authority. This conduct of the Corporate Debtor is not only unethical but also illegal to some extent. In spite of that, I am allowing this application only with a view that Corporate Debtor should not undergo CIRP for nonappearance of their advocate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates