Tribunal admits insolvency, rejects stay, imposes cost on Corporate Debtor. Upheld admission order, dismissed objections.

The Tribunal admitted insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Corporate Debtor's stay application was rejected, and a cost of Rupees Two Lakhs was imposed. The Tribunal upheld the admission order, emphasizing the Corporate Debtor's failure to participate and dismissing claims of improper notice and lack of jurisdiction to review or stay proceedings. Compliance with notice requirements was affirmed, and the Tribunal proceeded with insolvency proceedings following the prescribed timeline.

---

---

Issues:
1. Admission of insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
2. Stay application filed by the Corporate Debtor.
3. Argument regarding the Corporate Debtor's status as a guarantor, not a principal borrower.
4. Allegation of lack of proper hearing opportunity and service of notice to the Corporate Debtor.
5. Compliance with notice requirements and timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
6. Jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal to review its own orders and stay insolvency proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The Financial Creditor filed a petition under Section 7 for insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, which was admitted on 30.08.2019, leading to the commencement of insolvency proceedings.

2. The Corporate Debtor filed a stay application seeking to halt the operation of the admission order until another application was heard. The Tribunal rejected the stay application and imposed a cost of Rupees Two Lakhs to be paid before considering the other application.

3. The Corporate Debtor argued that they were a guarantor, not the principal borrower, and thus, the initiation of proceedings under Section 7 was incorrect. They provided documentation to support this claim.

4. The Corporate Debtor alleged that they were not properly served notice and were deprived of a fair hearing opportunity, leading to an ex-parte order. They sought to stop the advertisement by the Interim Resolution Professional to prevent irreparable loss.

5. The Financial Creditor claimed to have provided sufficient notice to the Corporate Debtor through various letters and affidavits, demonstrating compliance with the notice requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

6. The Tribunal upheld the admission order, stating that the Corporate Debtor's absence led to the proceedings following the Code's prescribed timeline. The Tribunal also clarified that it lacked jurisdiction to review its order or stay insolvency proceedings, dismissing the stay applications.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, including the admission of insolvency proceedings, stay applications, arguments regarding the debtor's status, notice compliance, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction to review orders and stay proceedings.

---