9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 929X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Petition, the Contra observation made by the Adjudicating Authority, Viz., that the Respondent had not filed its Reply is clearly an erroneous one, and there appears to be a Costly Lapse / Omission, on the part of the Adjudicating Authority in not noticing the filing of Counter / Reply, in a proper and real perspective. Therefore, this Tribunal, without going in to the merits of the Controversies/ Disputes, between the respective Parties and not delving deep in to the same, without any Haziness, simpliciter comes to an inevitable, inescapable and irresistible conclusion that the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench II, Chennai), had committed a serious Material Irregularity and Patent Illegality in passi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le settlement. Since, the respondent has not filed reply, the responsibility of the applicant to prove `debt and `default is very high. The onus is on the Applicant to satisfy that there is no ``pre-existing dispute between the both. From the documents, it is clear that there were lot of discussions and meetings between both. The outcome of the same is not before this `Adjudicating Authority . Since the IBC is rigorous statue, abundant caution ought to be exercised, before passing order. However, the rights of the Applicant for recovery of his dues, if any, intact. and `dismissed the `Application , without costs. 4. Assailing the `Correctness , the `Validity , `Propriety and `Legality of the `impugned order dated 30.04.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not filed its `Reply and this erroneous observation, is opposed to the `available materials on record . 7. As a matter of fact, the factum of filing of `Reply of the Respondent before the `Adjudicating Authority , is not disputed by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, in the instant `Appeal , before this `Tribunal . In this connection, this `Tribunal , relevantly points out that, although the Learned Counsel for the Respondent had referred to the `Minutes of Meeting for the `amicable solution dated 15.12.2018 (vide Page 46 of the `Appeal Paper Book Diary No. 589 dated 25.06.2022), wherein at Serial No.6, it is mentioned that ``For Arul, a salary of 70,000 per month for 15 months from 1st Jan 2016 March 31 2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a serious `Material Irregularity and `Patent Illegality in passing the `impugned order and this `Appellate Tribunal , to prevent an `Aberration of Justice and in furtherance of `Substantial Cause of Justice , sets aside the `impugned order dated 30.04.2021 in IBA/1297/2019, passed by it. Consequently, the `Appeal succeeds. 10. In fine, the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 185 of 2021 is allowed. No costs. The matter is remitted back to the `Adjudicating Authority (`National Company Law Tribunal , Division Bench II, Chennai) to restore IBA/1297/2019, filed by the Appellant / Operational Creditor / Petitioner, to its file, within two weeks from the date of pronouncement of `Judgment . 11. The `Adjudicating Authority , afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
