Tribunal dismisses Corporate Debtor's bid to undo CIRP order due to address notification lapse

The Tribunal dismissed the Corporate Debtor's application seeking restoration of the Company Petition and setting aside the ex-parte CIRP order. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with statutory requirements, particularly regarding the address change notification to the Registrar of Companies. It clarified that the Tribunal lacks the power to review or recall final orders under the IBC, 2016, except for procedural defects or fraud. The Corporate Debtor's failure to update its address was deemed its responsibility, and the application was considered an attempt to delay the CIRP process, leading to its dismissal with a cost imposed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Restoration of Company Petition and CIRP initiation.
2. Procedural lapses and address change of the Corporate Debtor.
3. Tribunal's power to set aside ex-parte CIRP orders.
4. Review and recall of final orders under IBC, 2016.
5. Procedural review versus substantial review.
6. Compliance with statutory requirements for address change.
7. Adherence to timelines under IBC, 2016.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Restoration of Company Petition and CIRP Initiation:
The Corporate Debtor filed an application seeking restoration of the Company Petition after an order of admission was passed by the Tribunal initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against it on 08.03.2019, based on a petition by the Financial Creditor. The Corporate Debtor acknowledged the housing loan facility of Rs. 1,06,20,000/- and the repossession of the mortgaged property by the Financial Creditor after the account was declared a non-performing asset (NPA).

2. Procedural Lapses and Address Change of the Corporate Debtor:
The Corporate Debtor argued that it did not receive any notice from the Tribunal due to a change in its registered office address, which occurred after an eviction notice from the landlord. The new address was not communicated to statutory authorities or business parties. The Tribunal noted that the Corporate Debtor failed to inform the Registrar of Companies (ROC) about the change, which is a statutory requirement under the Companies Act, 2013.

3. Tribunal's Power to Set Aside Ex-parte CIRP Orders:
The Corporate Debtor relied on an order from the NCLT Kolkata Bench, arguing that the Tribunal has the power to set aside ex-parte CIRP orders based on procedural lapses. The Tribunal, however, emphasized that the NCLT Rules, 2016, and the Companies Act, 2013, do not grant such powers for substantial reviews based on merits.

4. Review and Recall of Final Orders under IBC, 2016:
The Financial Creditor contended that the Tribunal lacks the power to review or recall final orders under the IBC, 2016, as established by consistent rulings and the absence of such provisions in the IBC. The Tribunal upheld this view, referencing judgments from the NCLAT and the Allahabad High Court, which affirmed that procedural reviews are only permissible for procedural defects or fraud.

5. Procedural Review versus Substantial Review:
The Corporate Debtor sought a procedural review, claiming procedural lapses in the notice delivery due to the address change. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the failure to update the registered office address with the ROC was the Corporate Debtor's responsibility and not a procedural lapse by the Tribunal or the Financial Creditor.

6. Compliance with Statutory Requirements for Address Change:
The Tribunal highlighted the Corporate Debtor's duty to communicate any change in the registered office address to the ROC, as mandated by the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal concluded that the Corporate Debtor's failure to comply with this requirement cannot be considered a procedural lapse warranting a review.

7. Adherence to Timelines under IBC, 2016:
The Tribunal reiterated the importance of adhering to the strict timelines under the IBC, 2016, as emphasized by the Supreme Court in the Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. case. The Tribunal noted that the present application by the Corporate Debtor was an attempt to delay the CIRP process and dismissed it with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within two weeks.

---