https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753099 The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging the validity of admission of a section 7 application under CIRP. The corporate debtor alleged violation of natural justice and denial of opportunity to file reply, claiming error in interpreting Rule 49(2) of NCLT Rules, 2016. The tribunal held that the corporate debtor was not prevented by sufficient cause from appearing, as notice was duly served. The counsel's recent engagement without filing vakalatnama did not constitute sufficient cause. Rule 49 provides adequate jurisdiction for ex parte proceedings when corporate debtor fails to appear. Since debt and default were established through a DRT consent decree and the appellant made no submissions on merits, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed. en-us Tue, 21 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 May 2024 21:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753099 The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging the validity of admission of a section 7 application under CIRP. The corporate debtor alleged violation of natural justice and denial of opportunity to file reply, claiming error in interpreting Rule 49(2) of NCLT Rules, 2016. The tribunal held that the corporate debtor was not prevented by sufficient cause from appearing, as notice was duly served. The counsel's recent engagement without filing vakalatnama did not constitute sufficient cause. Rule 49 provides adequate jurisdiction for ex parte proceedings when corporate debtor fails to appear. Since debt and default were established through a DRT consent decree and the appellant made no submissions on merits, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 21 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753099