9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and retrieve it from procedural tangles. There is a finding of this Adjudicating Authority that at the very threshold the debt in question is disputed by the Respondent/ Corporate Debtor. This is a finding that has not been challenged so far in a manner known to law. There is a further finding that the petition is not complete in all respects and therefore the petition is dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution. Therefore, there are two reasons for dismissal (1) that the debt is disputed; and (2) that the petition was not prosecuted diligently by the Applicant/ Operational Creditor. The present application has been filed even without the mandatory affidavit verifying the contents. Even without this, the present applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d none present from the side of the Petitioner. Learned Representative of the Respondent Debtor has stated that Petition has not yet been served. The Petitioner is directed to complete the requisite Form because the name of the IRP is not proposed. There is no evidence of Section 8 notice. Also directed to serve the copy of Petition to the other side on or before next date of hearing. 3. The matter is adjourned to 08.08.2018. (c) On 08.08.2018, the daily order records as follows: - 1. The Learned Representative of Respondent is present. 2. When the case was called none present from the side of the Petitioner. 3. On the last occasion i.e. 19.06.2018 same was the situation. 4. Learned Counsel from the si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was no intimation, the Applicant/ Operational Creditor s side remained unrepresented on 19.06.2018 as well as on 08.08.2018, and the matter came to be dismissed. 3.2. The Applicant/Operational Creditor has also mentioned in its Application that its Counsel visited the Tribunal on 25.09.2018 to mention the case, only to learn from the Registry that the Petition had been dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution. 3.3. The Applicant/Operational Creditor has prayed that the nonappearance on the said dates, i.e., 19.06.2018 and 08.08.2018, may be condoned and the petition be taken up for hearing. 4. Arguments of Mr Darryl Pereira, learned counsel for the Respondent/ Corporate Debtor 4.1. The Respondent/ Corporate Debtor ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.2018. Therefore, the present petition filed under section 32 will not lie. 4.5. Mr Pereira pointed out that there was also no affidavit verifying the contents of the present Application. 4.6. Mr Pereira also submitted that there is no provision enabling this Tribunal to review its own judgment. The order dated 08.08.2018 has attained finality. The present application is only a ruse to circumvent the appeal provisions prescribed under section 61 of the IBC as there has been gross delay on the part of the Applicant/Operational Creditor in appealing against the said order dated 08.08.2018. Objections on merits 4.7. Mr Pereira submitted that the original petition was also not served on the Respondent/ Corporate Debtor before fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed with exemplary cost. 5. Our observations 5.1. It is a settled judicial principle that procedure should ultimately subserve the cause of justice, and that procedural niceties should not be allowed to defeat the same. With this cardinal principle in mind, we have examined the rival contentions in the present application. For good measure, we have also carefully looked at the main Company Petition itself to see whether there is indeed a case made out for restoration of the Company Petition and retrieve it from procedural tangles. 5.2. We notice that there is a finding of this Adjudicating Authority that at the very threshold the debt in question is disputed by the Respondent/ Corporate Debtor. This is a finding that has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
