Validity of NCLT order upheld on appeal, debt and default established, Rule 151 & 152(4) applied

The judgment upheld the validity of the order pronounced by one member of the Bench with the consent of the other member, in compliance with Rule 151 of the NCLT Rules. The appeal challenging the order's admissibility under Section 7 was dismissed due to the absence of any merit, as the debt and default were established, and the application of Rule 152(4) was deemed unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Admissibility of application under Section 7 challenged based on NCLT Rules.
2. Interpretation of Rule 151 and Rule 152 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.
3. Validity of order pronounced by one member of the Bench with consent of the other member.
4. Application of Rule 152(4) regarding signing of orders.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the admission of an application under Section 7, with the appellant challenging the order's pronouncement under Rule 151 and Rule 152 of the NCLT Rules. The contention was that the order was signed by only one member, raising concerns about compliance with the rules.

2. Rule 151 allows any member of the Bench to pronounce the order on behalf of the Bench. The order in question was signed by one member, indicating that the Technical Member was unavailable. The order explicitly mentioned that it was pronounced with the consent of the other member, demonstrating compliance with Rule 151 of the NCLT Rules.

3. Rule 152 deals with authorizing a member to pronounce an order when the original members are unavailable. In this case, Rule 152(4) was cited, but it was clarified that the Technical Member was temporarily unavailable, not permanently absent. The order was pronounced with his consent, and there was no need to apply Rule 152(4) as the situation did not involve reasons like death, retirement, or resignation.

4. The Tribunal found no error in the pronouncement of the order by one member with the consent of the other member under Rule 151. The appeal was dismissed as there was a clear debt and default, which was undisputed in the Section 7 application. The Tribunal concluded that Rule 152(4) was not applicable in this scenario, and the order was validly pronounced under Rule 151.

In summary, the judgment upheld the validity of the order pronounced by one member of the Bench with the consent of the other member, in compliance with Rule 151 of the NCLT Rules. The appeal challenging the order's admissibility under Section 7 was dismissed due to the absence of any merit, as the debt and default were established, and the application of Rule 152(4) was deemed unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

---