2025 (5) TMI 2227 - AT - IBC

Preponing an appeal hearing without separate notice before main appeal notice, preponement allowed; notice issued on administrator claims

The dominant issue was whether the appeal hearing should be preponed. The NCLAT held that, since no notice had been issued in the main appeal, no separate ... Application for preponement of the date of hearing of the main appeal from 01.07.2025 to today i.e. 30.05.2025 - It is the grievance of the Appellant that the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to proceed with the application much less to pass any adverse orders in view of the fact that the Tribunal has already become Functus officio - HELD THAT:- Since in the main appeal, no notice was issued, therefore, there is no necessity of issuing notice in this application also but Mr. Siddhant Kumar, Adv. has appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and 2 and submitted that copy of the application was given to him but he was not aware of the date of listing. In any case, he is present in court. It is deemed just and expedient to allow this application and prepone the date of hearing of the main appeal from 01.07.2025 to today i.e. 30.05.2025. Appointment of administrator - inaction or failure on the part of the Reserve Bank of India in fulfilling its obligations - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to note that the interim directions issued by the learned Judge appear to address and adjudicate all issues and contentions inter se the parties, including those that are sub-judice before the NCLT/NCLAT and the RBI. The matter requires scrutiny. Issue notice. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether the hearing date of the main appeal should be preponed in view of asserted urgency arising from imminent proceedings on a pending interlocutory application before the Tribunal and the appellant's apprehension of adverse orders. (ii) Pending consideration of the appeal, what interim arrangement should govern the Tribunal's further decision on the interlocutory application that had led to an interim stay of scheduled annual general meetings. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS (i) Preponement of the appeal hearing Legal framework: The Court addressed preponement as a case-management and urgency determination on the facts placed before it; no separate statutory provision was analysed. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that notice in the main appeal had not yet been issued, and that the appeal had previously not been taken up due to paucity of time. The urgency asserted was that the interlocutory application was listed before the Tribunal on the same day, coupled with the appellant's apprehension that the Tribunal, alleged to have become functus officio, might nevertheless proceed and pass adverse orders. Although a respondent appeared and indicated reliance on a superior court order for the Tribunal's assumption of jurisdiction, the Court confined itself to the narrow question of whether the hearing should be advanced to address the claimed urgency. Conclusion: The Court found it just and expedient to allow preponement and advanced the hearing date of the main appeal to the same day. (ii) Interim protection concerning the Tribunal's decision on the pending interlocutory application Legal framework: The Court's order proceeded on interim balancing pending adjudication; it did not conclusively determine maintainability or jurisdictional objections at this stage. Interpretation and reasoning: The appeal challenged an order passed while the Tribunal was dealing with the interlocutory application, including an interim stay affecting scheduled annual general meetings. The appellant primarily sought to contest the maintainability of that interlocutory application, while the respondents contended it was supported by liberty recorded in a superior court's order. The Court expressly stated that the matter required scrutiny, issued notice, and set timelines for pleadings and a future hearing. To prevent prejudice pending that scrutiny, and in view of the ongoing proceedings before the Tribunal on the interlocutory application, the Court directed that any decision taken by the Tribunal on that interlocutory application would not attain finality independently and would remain contingent on the appeal's result and the superior court's order. Conclusion: Notice was directed in the appeal with filing schedules and a hearing date, and an interim direction was issued that the Tribunal's decision on the interlocutory application shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal and the superior court's order.