9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration and the Direction in the I.A. No. 203/JPR/2022 seeking various documents were with the object of examining the veracity of the claim. In so far as the direction of the personal appearance of the directors of the Appellant is concerned, which direction related to appearance on the next date of hearing and the next date having already over and Appellant having also appeared and participated in the proceeding, there is no necessity to examine the correctness of the direction for personal appearance. In pursuance of the Impugned Order, it appears that several documents have been provided for, we see no reason to keep this Appeal pending, we only observe that in event with regard to any particular documents, there is any difficulty faced by the Appellant/Applicant, it is always open for the Applicant/Appellant to file an appropriate application seeking exemption giving reasons for not producing the particular document which Application may be considered by the Adjudicating Authority and appropriate order be placed therein to prosecute the proceedings further. The Adjudicating Authority having jurisdiction to ask for documents and doubts having been expressed by the Adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that the Adjudicating Authority had no jurisdiction to ask for materials and documents as has been enumerated in the Order impugned. The amounts claimed by the Appellant was satisfactory explained. The Adjudicating Authority sought the documents from the Appellant which are not in his power and possession. The Adjudicating Authority is wrong in seeking personal appearance of the directors of the Appellant-Company. The Appellant does not fall in any of the provisions of Section 5(24) of IBC to be declared as related party. Even if it is presumed that assigner company were related parties of the Corporate Debtor, the Adjudicating Authority was obliged to consider that assignment was made five years prior to the initiation of the CIRP. The directions passed in the Impugned Order fall outside the purview of the jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority under the IBC. No reasons have been given by the Adjudicating Authority as to why so many documents are being called for and the Adjudicating Authority erred in denying the interim prayer to the Appellant by which stay of convening CoC meeting was asked for. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Resolution Professional refuting the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order crossexamination of any deponent on the points of conflict either through information and communication technology facilities such a video conferencing or otherwise as may be decided by the Tribunal, on an application moved by any party. (3) Every affidavit to be filed before the Tribunal shall be in Form No. NCLT.7. . 43. Power of the Bench to call for further information or evidence.-(1) The Bench may, before passing orders on the petition or application, require the parties or any one or more of them, to produce such further documentary or other evidence as it may consider necessary:- (a) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the truth of the allegations made in the petition or application; Or (b) for ascertaining any information which, in the opinion of the Bench, is necessary for the purpose of enabling it to pass orders in the petition or application. (2) Without prejudice to sub-rule(1), the Bench may, for the purpose of inquiry or investigation, as the case may be, admit such documentary and other mode of recordings in electronic form including e-mails, books of accounts, book or paper, written communications, statements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doubts regarding the claim of the Applicant especially when claim totaled Rs. 12893,39,03,000/- arising out of three assignment deeds which were allegedly shortstamped. 11. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied on the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in [2010 14 SCC 38] Ramjas Foundation and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. where Hon ble Supreme Court laid down following in paragraph 21: 21. The principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case. 12. In the present case, we are not re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
