Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the differing views recorded by the Members of the Tribunal on the same subject required reference of the matter to the President for nomination of a third Member under the statutory scheme.
Analysis: The appeal turned on the existence of inconsistent conclusions in the two separate orders passed by the Members of the Tribunal. One view treated the matter as requiring detailed adjudication outside the summary insolvency process, while the other view treated the interim protection as continuing and made it absolute. In such a situation, Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 60(3) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 require the point of difference to be resolved in accordance with the prescribed reference mechanism, including consideration by a third Member where the Members are equally divided.
Conclusion: The matter had to be referred for decision by a third Member in accordance with the statutory procedure, and the appeal was disposed of by remanding the case to the President of the Tribunal.
Final Conclusion: The appellate order did not finally determine the merits of the underlying insolvency disputes and instead sent the matter back for resolution through the statutory difference-resolution process.
Ratio Decidendi: Where Members of the Tribunal differ on a point and no majority emerges, the matter must be referred and decided under the statutory mechanism for an equally divided bench.