2019 (12) TMI 1525

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....olvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority), Rules 2016 for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in the case of M/s. KSM Spinning Mills Ltd. After hearing both the sides, the order was reserved on 20.11.2019. 2. CA No. 1169/2019 is filed under Rule 11 read with Rules 15 and 153 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. The application is filed by KSM Spinning Mills Ltd. (Applicant) It is stated that on the date of hearing of 20.11.2019, the arguing counsel for the applicant/respondent in CP(IB) No. 250/Chd/Pb/2018 was not available and in the interest of justice, applicant/respondent in CP(IB) No. 250/Chd/Pb/2018 needed an opportunity to put forth its plea raised in the reply to the main application as also other ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent in CP(IB) No. 250/Chd/Pb/2018 and Bank and have also perused the record. 5. The major contention is that on the date of hearing of 20.11.2019, the arguing counsel for the respondent was not available. However, we find from the order dated 20.11.2019 that Shri Anand Chhibbar, Senior Advocate with Shri Gaurav Mankotia, Advocate were present for the respondent in CP(IB) No. 250/Chd/Pb/2018 and were also heard. 6. In the application (para No. 4), the applicant/respondent in CP(IB) No. 250/Chd/Pb/2018 accepts that reply to the main application was filed. This reply was filed by Diary No. 4859 dated 11.12.2018 in which contentions were inter alia raised regarding settlement proposal of the respondent being pending for consideratio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....312 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras on 30.08.2017. It is pleaded that it was held in para No. 12 therein that the Court has discretionary power to reopen the evidence and to reopen any witness suo motu or on submission by a party. We find that the Hon'ble Madras High Court also held that the discretionary power has to be exercised judicially, sparingly and in exceptional cases and that the Court has to consider whether reopening of evidence on behalf of the parties and permission to mark a document is necessary to decide the issue. We have already discussed the facts of the present case above and have found that right to hearing was given and availed by the learned counsel for the applicant....