9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the reason that in the interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed that various subsequent events be taken note of and pronouncement of the order in the Company Petition be deferred. If the interlocutory application as well as the Company Petition are decided together, the apprehension of the petitioner of prejudice being caused to it cannot be brushed aside as unfounded - The interlocutory application now filed before the NCLT seeks consideration of these aspects before adjudicating the Company Petition. This request made by the petitioner ought to be considered by the NCLT before deciding the Company Petition. The interest of justice demands that the interlocutory application preferred by the petitioner being Interim Applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h interest @ 15.15% p.a. with quarterly rests as well as 2% penal interest from 2nd December 2022 till its realization. The petitioner being aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ( DRAT ). In the meanwhile, the NCLT closed the proceedings in Company Petition No.132 of 2024 that were filed under Section 7 of the Code on 21st June 2024. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the DRAT, being Appeal on Diary No.1290 of 2024, an order was passed on 25th June 2024 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.6 crores as pre-deposit in two equal installments. Against the order dated 21st June 2024 passed by the NCLT in Company Petition No.132 of 2024, the petitioner approached the National Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be stayed until the DRAT decides the appeal. 4. Mr. Vivek Salunkhe, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the NCLAT permitted the petitioner to bring to the notice of the NCLT subsequent events/materials in the form of the order of the DRT being stayed by the DRAT, it was expected that Interlocutory Application No. 3623 of 2024 preferred by the petitioner would be first considered before passing a final order in the Company Petition. Instead, both the proceedings are now reserved for orders, thereby depriving the petitioner of the right to urge before the NCLT the effect of the subsequent events. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in case a drastic order under Section 7 of the Code admitting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication bringing the subsequent materials to the notice of the NCLT. Paragraph 3 of the said order reads as under :- 3. Adjudicating Authority having reserved the application for orders, we see no reason to entertain this Appeal at this stage. If so advised, Appellant may file an application bringing subsequent materials on record before the Adjudicating Authority and it is for the Adjudicating Authority to take appropriate action on the said application. 7. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner having filed the aforesaid interlocutory application, the interest of justice demands that this application be considered prior to passing any order on the Company Petition preferred by the Bank. This is for the reason that in the int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
