Appellate tribunal overturns previous orders, directs fresh consideration with detailed hearings.

The appellate tribunal set aside the orders dated 17.07.2020 and 14.08.2020, directing a fresh consideration by the Adjudicating Authority with detailed hearings and appropriate orders. The appeals were allowed, with no costs imposed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Cooperation of key personnel with the Liquidator.
2. Access to the registered office premises.
3. Contempt proceedings against non-cooperating parties.
4. Clarification on exclusive possession of office premises.
5. Procedural fairness in passing orders without hearing affected parties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Cooperation of Key Personnel with the Liquidator:
The Liquidator, appointed in January 2018, faced significant hindrances in resuming work at the Corporate Debtor’s office due to non-cooperation from key personnel, who cited COVID-19 lockdown as the reason. The Liquidator filed an application under Sections 19(2) and 34(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code), seeking various reliefs to ensure cooperation from key personnel for resumption of work.

2. Access to the Registered Office Premises:
The Adjudicating Authority, in its order dated 17.07.2020, directed the key personnel and the owner of the premises to hand over the keys to the Liquidator and ensure at least 20% of the staff assist the Liquidator. However, the premises were used by over 20 companies, raising concerns about the safety and security of their documents. The Liquidator clarified he did not seek exclusive possession but only access to the office premises.

3. Contempt Proceedings Against Non-Cooperating Parties:
Following non-compliance with the 17.07.2020 order, the Liquidator filed a contempt application against certain directors and key personnel, seeking show-cause notices and necessary orders to ensure compliance. The Adjudicating Authority issued a show-cause notice on 14.08.2020 and directed the handover of keys, failing which the Liquidator could seek police assistance.

4. Clarification on Exclusive Possession of Office Premises:
The Appellants filed an application for clarification, arguing that the Liquidator should not claim exclusive possession as the premises were used by multiple companies. This application was not considered before the contempt order was passed, leading to the argument that the Liquidator only needed access to the Corporate Debtor’s records, not exclusive possession.

5. Procedural Fairness in Passing Orders Without Hearing Affected Parties:
The Appellants contended that the orders dated 17.07.2020 and 14.08.2020 were passed without giving them an opportunity to be heard, as they were not arrayed as parties in the initial application. The appellate tribunal noted this procedural lapse and emphasized the necessity of hearing all affected parties before passing such orders.

Conclusion:
The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned orders dated 17.07.2020 and 14.08.2020, directing the Adjudicating Authority to consider the matter afresh with detailed hearings and appropriate orders as per law. The appeals were allowed, with no order as to costs.

---