9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Senior Counsel appearing for the 'Appellant' / 'Bank' and the Learned Counsel appearing for the '1st Respondent' / 'Liquidator' at the 'Admission' stage itself. 2. The 'Appellant' / 'Bank' has preferred the instant Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.446/2022, before this 'Tribunal' as an 'Aggrieved Person' being dissatisfied with the 'impugned order' dated 03.03.2022 in IA(IBC)/1341(CHE)/2020 in IBA/243/2019, passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority', (National Company Law Tribunal, Special Bench - II, Chennai), whereby and whereunder, the 'Appellant' / 'Bank' was directed to refund a sum of Rs.11,30,40,034/- to the 'Corporate Debtor's' Account in the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process'. 3. According to the 'Appellant' / 'Bank' a sum o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The 'primordial plea' of the Learned Counsel for the 'Appellant' / 'Bank' is that the 'Appellant' / 'Bank' has a good case / cause, on merits of the matter and before the 'Adjudicating Authority', ('Tribunal'), IA(IBC)/419(CHE)/2022 in IBA/243/2019 was filed to 'set aside' the 'impugned order dated 03.03.2022, passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority', (National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench). 6. In this connection, the 'Grievance' of the 'Appellant' / 'Bank' / 'Petitioner' is that the 'Application' came to be 'dismissed' by the 'Tribunal' on 18.10.2022 without taking into consideration 'Rule 49 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which provides for 'sufficient cause' in regard to the 'non-appearance of the parties'. 7. Aggrieved by the 'Order' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notice' in IA(IBC)/1341(CHE)/2020 in IBA/243/2019 was also sent to 'its Address' and even the 'Bombay' Head Office of the 'Appellant' / 'Bank', but, squarely due to 'lockdown' during the Covid-19 Pandemic and the 'Bank' was working with 'skeletal staff', to cater to the 'essential requirements of the customers', many of them were working from 'Home(s)' and the 'Notice' in IA(IBC)/1341(CHE)/2020 in IBA/243/2019 sent to the 'Petitioner' / 'Appellant' / 'Bank' was not followed up to enter appearance in the 'Application'. Hence, the 'Appellant' / 'Bank' was 'Ex parte' and the IA(IBC)/1341(CHE)/2020 in IBA/243/2019, proceeded as 'Ex parte' before the 'Adjudicating Authority' (Tribunal). 12. It comes to be known that the 'Appellant' / 'Bank' had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (CHE)/2020 in IBA/243/2019 was listed before the 'Adjudicating Authority', 'Tribunal', on numerous dates viz., 1) 05.08.2021; 2) 16.09.2021; 3) 30.09.2021; 4) 08.11.2021; 5) 06.12.2021, 6) 21.12.2021 and 7) 01.02.2022 and finally order was passed on 03.03.2022. 16. According to the 1st Respondent, the 'Appellant' / 'Applicant' had reasonable time to represent before the 'Adjudicating Authority', 'Tribunal', and it had failed to exercise its right, of course, after having adequate opportunities. 17. It is specifically averred in the 'Counter' of the 1st Respondent that the 'Notice' for appearance was sent to the 'Corporate Debtor's Head Office', 'Branch Office' and other 'Alternative Office' of the 'Appellant' / 'Petitioner' / 'Bank' on 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in IA(IBC)/1341(CHE)/2020 in IBA/243/2019 that the 'Appellant' / 'Bank' was served 'Notices' not only to its 'Corporate Branch Office' and also, other 'Alternative Offices' on 16.07.2021 and the same was duly served on 17.07.2021 and 22.07.2021 respectively. 21. As such by no such imagination, it can be said that the 'Petitioner' / 'Appellant' / 'Bank' was not provided with an 'enough opportunity' or 'adequate opportunity' to take its own decision in the subject matter in issue. 22. To be noted, that Rule 49 (2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 under the 'caption', 'Ex parte' 'Hearing and Disposal' points out that if a 'Notice' was not duly served or the 'concerned person' was prevented by any 'sufficient cause' for appearing at the time when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal') is left with no action but to 'Record' that the 'Notices' sent were held sufficient. 25. Although the 'Plea' of 'Covid-19 Pandemic', appears to be a persuasive one, at the first blush, on acceptable one, on going through the 'spirit' and 'tenor' of the 'Counter' filed by the Respondent, this 'Tribunal' without any haziness, comes to an 'inevitable' and 'inescapable conclusion' that there is 'no Sufficient Cause' / 'Good Cause' for 'Allowing' the IA(IBC)/419(CHE)/2022 in IA(IBC)/1341(CHE)/2020 in IBA/243/2019. In short, this 'Tribunal' is in 'Complete Agreement' with the 'Conclusion', arrived at by the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('Tribunal') in the impugned order in IA(IBC)/419(CHE)/2022 in IA(IBC)/1341(CHE)/2020 in IBA/243/2019, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
