Appellate Tribunal Overturns NCLT Orders, Emphasizes Fair Proceedings

The Appellate Tribunal set aside the orders dated 30.08.2019 and 16.09.2019 passed by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, in a case involving the admission of a petition under Section 7 of the IBC. The matter was remitted back to the NCLT for a reevaluation, with instructions to hear all parties, including the Appellant and Respondent No. 1, regarding the Interim Resolution Professional's fee and expenses, and to pass appropriate orders within six weeks. The Appellant's contentions regarding denial of opportunity and improper application of relevant provisions were upheld, emphasizing the importance of fair proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the orders dated 30.08.2019 and 16.09.2019 passed by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench.
2. Alleged denial of opportunity to the Corporate Debtor to be heard.
3. Interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and NCLT Rules.
4. Whether the transactions in question were sham and fraudulent.
5. Jurisdiction and power of the NCLT to recall ex-parte orders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Orders Dated 30.08.2019 and 16.09.2019:
The Appellant challenged the orders dated 30.08.2019 and 16.09.2019 passed by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, which admitted the petition filed by the Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the IBC and initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant argued that these orders were passed without considering relevant provisions of law and in violation of principles of natural justice.

2. Alleged Denial of Opportunity to the Corporate Debtor to be Heard:
The Appellant contended that the Corporate Debtor was denied an opportunity to be heard and to file its reply before the NCLT, leading to wrongful initiation of proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC. The chronology of events presented by the Appellant highlighted that the Corporate Debtor was not properly informed of the hearing dates and was not given sufficient time to respond.

3. Interpretation and Application of Relevant Provisions of the IBC and NCLT Rules:
The Appellant argued that the NCLT failed to exercise its power and jurisdiction as per the relevant provisions of the IBC and NCLT Rules, particularly Rules 37, 49, and 150. The Appellant cited Rule 49, which allows the Tribunal to set aside an ex-parte order if sufficient cause is shown. The Appellant also referred to judgments by the Appellate Tribunal supporting the power of the NCLT to recall ex-parte orders.

4. Whether the Transactions in Question Were Sham and Fraudulent:
The Appellant claimed that the transactions portrayed as loan/debt by the Financial Creditor were sham and fraudulent. However, due to the lack of opportunity to present its case, the Corporate Debtor could not adjudicate upon these alleged sham transactions.

5. Jurisdiction and Power of the NCLT to Recall Ex-parte Orders:
The Appellant emphasized that the NCLT has the power to recall ex-parte orders under Rule 49(2) of the NCLT Rules if the respondent shows sufficient cause for non-appearance. The Appellant argued that the NCLT failed to exercise this jurisdiction, causing prejudice to the Corporate Debtor.

Findings:
The Appellate Tribunal found that the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, did not consider the provisions of Rules 37, 49, and 150 of the NCLT Rules while passing the impugned orders. Consequently, the orders dated 30.08.2019 and 16.09.2019 were set aside. The matter was remitted back to the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, with instructions to hear the parties, including the Appellant and Respondent No. 1, regarding the fee and expenses of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), and to pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal directed the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, to re-evaluate the case, ensuring that the Corporate Debtor is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and to pass a fresh order considering all relevant provisions and submissions.

---