AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this `Tribunal' as an `Affected Person' seeking to set aside the `impugned order' dated 26.05.2020 passed by the `Adjudicating Authority' (`National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad) in IA No. 900 of 2019 & IA No. 901 of 2019 in CP(IB)374/7/HDB/2019. 2). Earlier, the `Adjudicating Authority' (`National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad), while passing the impugned order on 26.05.2020 in IA No. 900 of 2019 in CP(IB)374/7/HDB/2019 at paragraph 10 to 17 had observed the following: 10. ``It is the contention of the Corporate Debtor that no notice was served at any point of time prior to admission of Application U/s. 7 of IB Code and that there was no intimation to the Corporate Debtor being the Respondent about this matter till the initiation of CIRP. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant herein further contended that the Registered Office of the Corporate Debtor is situated at Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh and therefore NCLT Amaravati Bench only had the jurisdiction to entertain the CP filed against it. 12. The Financial Creditor/Respondent has stated that the notice first sent to the Corporate Debtor were returned with an endorsement `Left'. Subsequently, this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed of the Interlocutory Applications as `not maintainable'. 3). The `Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad) in CP(IB) No.374/7/HDB/2019 on 27.09.2019 at paragraph 16 to 19 had among other things, observed the following: 16. "During the hearing on 18.07.2019, one Mr. Sunil, Director of the Corporate Debtor appeared and prayed time for engaging a counsel and giving reply. Considering his request, matter was adjourned to 08.08.2019. But no representation was made on behalf of Corporate Debtor on 08.08.2019. 17. In view of the above and having satisfied with the proof of service of notice and since there was no representation, Respondent/Corporate Debtor was proceeded ex-parte on 08.08.2019. 18. Heard submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Financial Creditor and perused the record. 19. After hearing submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Financial Creditor and having perused the records, this Adjudicating Authority is satisfied with the proof placed by the Petitioner that default has occurred in respect of financial debt which the Corporate Debtor was liable to pay to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the `Ministry of Corporate Affairs' Website. 7). The `Appellant' takes a stand in January 2019, despite facing severe financial difficulties, the `Corporate Debtor' with a view to resolve its `debts' was in the process of negotiating and restructuring its dues keeping in mind the grievances of the `Creditors' including the Respondent No.1. Subsequently, the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool District, wrote a letter dated 27.02.2019 to the 1st Respondent, to extend the time for repayment of loan by 12 months, in view of the fact that large number of `families' are dependent upon the Unit and the `General Market Conditions'. Thereafter, the `Corporate Debtor' was repaying the loan amounts diligently and repaid a sum of Rs.5,19,00,000/- of the entire loan amount. 8). In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the `Appellant' points out that the Rs. 1st Respondent'/`Bank' had initiated proceedings under the `I & B Code' and on 18.07.2019, the `Appellant' had entered appearance before the `Adjudicating Authority', Hyderabad, and prayed for time, to file `Reply' and to engage an `Advocate' to represent him and the matter was adjourned to 08.08.2019. 9). Apart from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the `Applications' by directing the `Applicant' therein to approach the `Appropriate Forum' for the reliefs sought for in the `Applications' and accordingly, `disposed off' the IA No.900 of 2019 and IA No.901 of 2019 as `not maintainable'. Also, the `Adjudicating Authority' had opined that once an `Order Of Admission' was passed, the `Adjudicating Authority' has no power under the `I & B Code', 2016, to `Recall' or `Set-aside the Order'. 14). It is brought to the notice of this `Tribunal' that the `Corporate Debtor' had filed Civil Revision Petition No. 2508 of 2019 between `Neerajaksha Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. V Corporation Bank' whereby, the Hon'ble High Court of Telengana, on 30.10.2019 was pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 27.09.2019 by staying the `CIRP' and `Moratorium'. Again, the `Corporate Debtor' was perforced to approach the `Hon'ble High Court of Telengana' in Civil Revision Petition No.3080 of 2019 in the matter of `Neerajaksha Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. V Corporation Bank', which was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.01.2020. Appellant's Submissions: 15). The Learned Counsel for the `Appellant' contends that the `Adjudicating Authority' had failed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1). The Learned Counsel for the `Appellant' submits that for the mistake of `nonappearance' of the `Corporate Debtor/Petitioner's Counsel, the `Corporate Debtor/Petitioner' should not suffer. 22). The `Adjudicating Authority' ought to have considered the factual aspects and the legal aspects in a proper perspective and therefore, prays for : 1) To set aside the impugned order dated 26.05.2020 in I.A. No.900 of 2019 and in I.A.No. 901 of 2019 in CP (IB) No.374/7/HDB/2019 passed by the `Adjudicating Authority'. 2) To set aside the order dated 27.09.2019 in CP (IB) No.374/7/HDB/2019 passed by the `Adjudicating Authority Appellant's Decisions: 23). The Learned Counsel for the `Appellant' refers to the decision of the `Hon'ble Supreme Court' in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi V DLF Universal Ltd & Anr. reported in (2005) 7 SCC 791 at Spl Page 792 to 793 and 794 wherein, it is observed as under: "Section 16 CPC recognises a well-established principle that actions against res or property should be brought in the forum where such res is situate. A court within whose territorial jurisdiction the property is not situate has no power to deal with and decide the rig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sequent stage. Jurisdiction as to subject-matter, however, is totally distinct and stands on a different footing. Where a court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, it cannot take up the cause or matter. An order passed by a court having no jurisdiction is a nullity. Further, neither consent nor waiver nor acquiescence can confer jurisdiction upon a court, otherwise incompetent to try the suit. Hence, even though the plaintiff is right in submitting that the defendants had agreed to the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court and in the original written statement, they had admitted that the Delhi Court had jurisdiction and even after the amendment ion the written statement, the paragraph relating to jurisdiction had remained as it was i.e. the Delhi Court had jurisdiction, it cannot take away the right of the defendants to challenge the jurisdiction of the court nor can it confer jurisdiction on the Delhi Court, which it did not possess. (Paras 30, 32 and 37) Where a court takes upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing. A decree pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is situated in Haryana, the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh has been made the Adjudicating Authority. In the present case, the Corporate Debtor / Corporate Person's registered office is situated in Gurgaon, Haryana, therefore, the Hon'ble President, NCLT for New Delhi Bench (Adjudicating Authority) rightly observed that petition at New Delhi is not maintainable." and finding no merit, the `Appeal' was `dismissed'. 25). In the decision in `Pramod Sharma V Dental Implants, reported in (2017) 200 Comp Cas 381 at paragraph 8 to 10, it is observed as under: 8. "Sub-rule (2) of rule 49 says, that when an application is heard ex-parte against the respondents, such respondents are given right to apply to the Tribunal to set aside the said order and the Tribunal can set aside the order if the respondents satisfy the Tribunal that the notices were not duly served or that they were prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing for hearing. In the case on hand, admittedly, no notice has been given on the application, I.A.No. 31 of 2016 to the original petitioner. Therefore, it is a case of non-tendering of notice to the original petitioner in I.A.No. 31 of 2016, l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al respondents. Respondent No. 2 shall pay costs of Rs.10,000 to the original petitioner within two weeks." 26). The Learned Counsel for the `Appellant' seeks in aid of the decision of the `Hon'ble Supreme Court' in `Hasham Abbas Sayyad V Usman Abbas Sayyad - reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases at page 355 at Spl Page 357, wherein it is observed and held as under: "A distinction must be made between a decree passed by a court which has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction in the light of Section 21 CPC, and a decree passed by a court having no jurisdiction in regard to the subject-matter of the suit. Whereas in the former case, the appellate court may not interfere with the decree unless prejudice is shown, ordinarily the second category of the cases would be interfered with." (Para 24) 27). The Learned Counsel for the `Appellant' refers to the order dated 17.07.2019 in the matter of NUI Pulp and Paper Industries Private Limited V M/s. Roxcel Trading GMBH (Comp App (AT) (INS) 664 of 2019), wherein at paragraph 4 and 10, it is observed as under: 4.``Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that before admission of an application under Section 7 or 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of corporate debtor to keep the track of the matter but they appeared to have ignored duty. This amount will be used as part Resolution cost incurred by IRP/Operational Creditor, if any. The Corporate Debtor is also directed to file affidavit-in-reply within 7 days and give copy of the same to the other side. If above conditions are not fulfilled then this application would deemed to be rejected and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process would be proceeded further. With this, application being CA(IB) No. 987/KB/2018 in CP(IB) No. 202/KB/2018 is disposed of." Rs. 1st Respondent'/`Bank' Submissions: 29). The Learned Counsel for the Rs. 1st Respondent'/`Bank' contends that objection to the `Territorial Jurisdiction' of a Court' or `Tribunal' or an `Inherent Lack of Jurisdiction Plea' to entertain a `Suit'/`Application' should be raised at the first instant and can be waived and in this connection refers to the decision of the `Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mantoo Sarkar V Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in AIR (2009) Supreme Court page 1022 wherein at paragraph 17 to 19 and 21, it is observed that as under: 17. "The Tribunal is a court subordinate to the Hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e a nullity, in the latter it would not be. It is not a case where the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in relation to the subject matter of claim. As a matter of fact the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. If the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, in our opinion, the Court should not have, in absence of any finding of sufferance of any prejudice on the part of the first respondent, entertained the appeal. In Bikash Bhushan Ghosh v. Novartis India Ltd., MANU/SC/7351/2007 (2007) IILLJ837SC, this Court had held: 17. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. If the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure are given effect to, even if the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal had no jurisdiction, in view of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless the respondent suffered any prejudice, they could not have questioned the jurisdiction of the court. In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan this Court held: (AIR p. 342, paras 6-7) Rs. 6. ... If the question now under consideration fell to be determined only on the application o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allowed by an appellate or revisional court, unless there was a consequent failure of justice. It is the same principle that has been adopted in Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act with reference to pecuniary jurisdiction. The policy underlying Sections 21 and 99 CPC and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is the same, namely, that when a case had been tried by a court on the merits and judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it had resulted in failure of justice, and the policy of the legislature has been to treat objections to jurisdiction both territorial and pecuniary as technical and not open to consideration by an appellate court, unless there has been a prejudice on the merits. The contention of the appellants, therefore, that the decree and judgment of the District Court, Monghyr, should be treated as a nullity cannot be sustained under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act.' " Furthermore in determining as to whether a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the court vis-a-vis an appellate court a large number of factors may have to be taken in consideration. [See Amb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....satisfied by the appellant but it would be entitled to realise the same from the owner of the tractor and the trolley wherefor it would not be necessary for it to initiate any separate proceedings for recovery of the amount as provided for under the Motor Vehicles Act. 14. It is well settled that in a situation of this nature this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Article 136 thereof can issue suit directions for doing complete justice to the parties." 30). The Learned Counsel for the Rs. 1st Respondent/Bank' falls back upon the decision of the `Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sneh Lata Goel V Pushplata and Ors., reported in AIR 2019 SC at Page 824, wherein at paragraph 14 to 19, it is observed as under: 14. "The objection which was raised in execution in the present case did not relate to the subject matter of the suit. It was an objection to territorial jurisdiction which does not travel to the root of or to the inherent lack of jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain this suit. An executing court cannot go behind the decree and must execute the decree as it stands. In Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecution of the decree on the ground of a want of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the court which passed the decree. 18. We have also not found merit in the contention that the impugned order of the High Court, being an order of remand, is in the nature of an interlocutory order which does not brook any interference. By the impugned order, the High Court has directed the executing court to entertain an objection to the validity of the decree for want of territorial jurisdiction. Such an objection would not lie before the executing court. Moreover, the objection that the property at Ranchi did not belong to the common ancestor is a matter of merits, which if at all, has to be raised before the appropriate court in the first appeal. 19. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The executing court shall conclude the execution proceedings expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs." 31). The Learned Counsel for the Rs. 1st Respondent/`Bank' points out that the `Debt' of the Rs. 1st Respondent/Bank', on 12.10.2018, stood adjudicated against the `Corporate Debtor' in O.A.No. 1331 of 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut the `change of address' of the Registered Office of the Company. Further, the `Board Resolution' filed by the `Appellant' together with I.A. Nos.900 and 901 of 2019 also reflects that the registered office of the `Appellant' was Hyderabad, Telengana. Indeed, the `Appellant' along with I.A. Nos. 900 and 901 of 2019 had brought on record a `Letter' addressed by the `Vijaya Bank' which reflects the address for all communication was Lakdikaphool, Hyderabad, Telengana. 36). The Learned Counsel for the Rs. 1st Respondent/Bank' submits that it is the `Appellant's case' that he was informed of the `Admission' of the `Application' filed under Section 7 of the Code, by the `Resolution Professional' through letter dated 28.10.2019. However, I.A. No. 900 of 2019 and I.A.No. 901 of 2019 for setting aside an `Exparte Order' were filed on 16.10.2019, which is earlier to 28.10.2019 i.e., the date of alleged knowledge. No reasons were given for the failure of the `Appellant" to contact his `Advocate' for more than two months' period. 37). The Learned Counsel for the Rs. 1st Respondent/Bank' brings it to the notice of this `Tribunal' that the `Appellant' had not challenged the aspect of `Te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Iron and Steel Private Limited' (`Corporate Debtor') on the subject of `Approval' of `OTS Proposal' in `NPA Account' of M/s Neerajaksha Iron and Steel Private Limited, wherein it is mentioned as under: "As per the offer letter given by you Dt. 24.09.2018 the competent authority of our Bank has accorded approval for the captioned OTS proposal on the following terms and conditions: a) Acceptance of Rs.12.00 Crores to consortium in full and final settlement of the amount payable as under: i) Rs.10.00 lakhs already paid in no-lien account. Rs.90.00 lakhs to be paid on or before 12.10.2018. ii) Rs.1.00 crore to be paid on or before 31.10.2018. iii) Balance Rs.10.00 crores to be paid in 5 EMI of Rs.2.00 crores on or before every month end commencing from Nov'18. b) You have to pay the delayed period interest at MCLR + 1% i.e., 9.70% beyond 30 days from the date of approval on the payable amount of offer amount i.e., from 06.11.2018. 42). The Learned Counsel for the Rs. 1st Respondent/Bank' submits that the `Appellant' has not raised any issue/controversy relating to the merits of the case. Also, it is represented on behalf of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant'. 45). Further, when the `Resolution Professional' had visited the factory, it was noticed as well as informed by the earlier `Plant Manager' that their factory is shut down from July 2019. The `Resolution Professional' filed an `Interlocutory Application No. 331 of 2020', seeking necessary directions from the `Adjudicating Authority' under Sec 19 (2) of the I & B' Code, 2016 and the same is pending. 46). The `Corporate Debtor' is trying to buy time and mishandled the accounts, he had diverted a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- lying in `Corporate Debtor's Bank Account' during the `CIRP' period when there was a stay from the `Hon'ble High Court' without any information to the `Resolution Professional'. 47). An Interlocutory Application No. 459, seeking directions under Section 60 (5) of the I & B Code, 2016 filed by the `Resolution Professional' is pending before the `Adjudicating Authority'. The `Appellant' is not cooperating to provide the required information to the `Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional' and also to deal with the `Banking matters/Cheques' routed through `IRP/RP' (countersigned by IRP/RP). Further, the `Appellant' had not provided any `Info....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RP', to be issued to the `Prospective Resolution Applicants'. The last date for submission of `Resolution Plan' was 15.04.2020. 54). Apart from the above, it is the stand of the Rs. 2nd Respondent' that in the Rs. 4th Committee of Creditors Meeting', the `Members' had directed the `Resolution Professional' to prefer an `Application' before the `Adjudicating Authority' for an extension of `CIRP' period, further 72 days beyond the 180 days Viz., up to 05.06.2020 and the `CoC Members' had voted 100% in favour of the `CIRP' period extension. Also that, as per `IBBI' (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2020 dated 29.03.2020, in terms of Regulation 40C, the period of lock down imposed by the Central Government because of the pandemic of Covid-19, shall not be counted for the purpose of the timeline. 55). It is the version of the Rs. 2nd Respondent', out of six `Prospective Resolution Applicants', 4 could not secure `E-Pass', to visit the site during Covid-19 lock down. In the Rs. 5th Committee of Creditors', that took place on 23.06.2020, the `Members of the CoC' by taking out of the aforesaid facts, gave their consent to seek an ext....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e `National Company Law Tribunal', within whose `jurisdiction' the Registered Office of the `Corporate Debtor' is located shall be deemed to be the `Adjudicating Authority' and shall have `jurisdiction' to initiate ` Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process', against the `Corporate Debtor'. Further, a `Decree'/`Order' passed by a `Court' without `jurisdiction' is a nullity and a plea against it can be set up at any stage. 64). The `Appellant', during the hearing of IA Nos.900 and 901 of 2019, the opportunity for the first time, to raise an objection as to the `jurisdiction' of the `National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad, and thus, the objection as to the `jurisdiction' was taken at the first available instance itself. The `Board Resolutions', annexed to the `Applications' filed before the `National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad Bench, were a part of the old printed stationery and it cannot form the basis of alleging that the Registered Address of the `Corporate Debtor' was anywhere, other than the address available on the records of the `Registrar of Companies'. 65). The `National Company Law Tribunal', `Amaravati Bench', was constituted as per notification dated 08.03.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar and decisive act or conduct beyond mere silence, as pure silence by a party in regard to a right perfectly known to the other can really mislead a man of average intelligence. The aspect of `Waiver' is a mixed question of `Law and Facts'. 72). The `principle of waiver' or `Approbation' and `Reprobation' lies at the root of conduct of productive change of activation and principle is akin to the `Rule of Constructive Resjudicata' IV as provided in Explanation 4 of Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code. Also that, a `Court of Law' / `Tribunal' ought to check the tendency of an `Unsuccessful Litigant' to avoid his defeat by devising a new case which was never projected when it should have been set up. Acquiescence: 73). `Acquiescence' is nothing more than an absolute or positive waiver. It amounts to the abandonment of rights as per decision in Govindsa Marotisa V Ismail and Anr., reported in AIR 1950 Nagpur, Page 22. Estoppel: 74). Be it noted, that `Estoppel' is not a `Cause of Action'. `Estoppel' deal with `Question of Fact' and not `Question of Right'. However, `Waiver' being an agreement to release or not to assert a right may constitute a `Cause of Action'. There i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....08.2019 and upon enquiry with his earlier Advocate he was informed that the `Advocate' could not attend the `Court' as he was suffering from `Viral Fever'. 81). That apart, the `Corporate Debtor' as Petitioner in I.A.No. 900 of 2019 in CP (IB) No. 374/7/HDB/2019 had prayed for setting aside the `Exparte Order' dated 27.09.2019 in main CP (IB) No. 374/7/HDB/2019 and further sought permission to contest the main Company Petition on merits by providing an opportunity to it, which will not cause any prejudice to the `Respondent'/`Financial Creditor'/`Applicant'. 82). The `Appellant'/`Director' of M/s. Neerajaksha Iron and Steel Private Limited (`Corporate Debtor'), on behalf of the `Corporate Debtor', (As an `Applicant'/Petitioner), before the `Adjudicating Authority', had filed IA No. 901 of 2019 in CP(IB) No.374/7/HDB/2019 inter alia averring that `No Notice' was served (upon the `Corporate Debtor') before filing of the main CP (IB) No. 374/7/HDB/2019 and further that a copy of the `Application/Petition' (Under Section 7 of the `I & B Code') was also not served to it. 83). In fact, in I.A. No. 901 of 2019 in the main CP(IB) No.374/7/HDB/2019, the `Appellant's Managing Direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7.2019, one Mr. Sunil, Director of the Corporate Debtor was present and prayed time for engaging counsel to give reply. At the request, matter posted to today. Sufficient time is given to the other side. Respondent is proceeded as Ex-parte. For hearing submissions of the Petitioner's counsel, matter adjourned. Petitioner's counsel is directed to inform next date of hearing to the other side. Put up the matter on 26.08.2019." 88). It is represented that the orders were reserved on 26.08.2019, after hearing the matter and the `Application' filed by the Rs. 1st Respondent/Bank' under Section 7 of the Code was admitted for `CIRP' on 27.09.2019. 89). The Rs. 1st Respondent/Bank' in its counter (to both the Applications) before the `Adjudicating Authority' had stated that the `Corporate Debtor' had not informed the Bank in regard to the change of the Registered Office address from `Hyderabad' to `Kurnool'. The `Corporate Debtor' had not made any arrangements to submit its arguments on 26.08.2019 before the `Adjudicating Authority'. 90). It comes to be known that in I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in CRP No. 2580 of 2019, filed by the `Corporate Debtor / M/s. Neerajaksha Iron and Ste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Part V, `Particulars of Financial Debt' (Documents, Records and Evidence of Default), it was mentioned that the `Charge' was first created in April 2011 and agreement for `Term Loan', `Working Capital Facility' and `Deed of Hypothecation' to secure demand, cash credit was executed, `Joint Mortgage' by `Deposit of Title Deeds' by way of construction delivery of companies, immovable properties was confirmed vide Registered MOD No.1163/2011 dated 06.04.2011. Also, it was mentioned that the `Charge Certificate' dated 11.08.2013 was for Rs.18.75 Crores. 95). Before the `Adjudicating Authority', the Rs. 1st Respondent/Bank' in CP (IB) No.374/7/HDB/2019, in the statement of facts filed on behalf of it at paragraph 13 had mentioned that the `Consortium Banks' had executed `inter-se agreement' for `Consortium Working Capital' and `Term Loan Advance' to the `Corporate Debtor' on 09.05.2011. 96). Besides the above, the 1st Respondent/Bank had also averred in its statement of facts before the `Adjudicating Authority' that the `Financial Creditor' issued `Notice of Default' dated 25.03.2019 and that the `Corporate Debtor' had evaded to receive the said `Notice' and the same got returned w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Iron & Steel Private Limited, Site No.4 & 5, Medehal Village, Halaharvi Mandal, Kurnool District, A.P.-518395, Debtor. Also, it is brought to the notice of this `Tribunal' that the `Substituted Service' (paper publication) was made in the Telugu language newspaper `Mana Telengana' (Telugu) on 10.07.2019 (Edition) of course, in the place where the Registered Office of the `Corporate Debtor' was situated and to that effect `proof of service' was filed before the `Adjudicating Authority'. 101). On 08.08.2019, the `Adjudicating Authority' had clearly observed in the order of main CP (IB) No.374/7/HDB/2019 that `as seen from the order dated 18.07.2019' one Mr. Sunil, Director of the `Corporate Debtor' was present and prayed time for engaging Counsel to give `Reply'. At his request matter was posted to today. Sufficient time was given to the other side, the Respondent was proceeded as exparte. For hearing the submissions of the Petitioner's Counsel (1st Respondent/Bank) the matter was adjourned and that the `Petitioner's Counsel was directed to inform the next date of hearing to the other side and the matter was directed to list on 26.08.2019 and that on 26.08.2019 the `Orders' were `....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ained the leave of the, Bombay High Court on the original side, under el. 12 of the Letters Patent, the correctness of the procedure or of the order granting the leave could be. questioned by the defendant or the objection could be waived by him. When he agreed to refer the matter to arbitration through Court, he would be deemed to have waived his objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, raised by him in his written statement. It is wel settled that the objection as to local jurisdiction of a Court does not stand on the same footing as an objection to the competence of a Court to try a case. Competence of a Court to try a case goes to the very (1) (1886) L.R. 13A. 134. root of the jurisdiction, and Where it is lacking, it is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. On the other hand, an objection as to the local jurisdiction of a Court can be waived and this principle has been given a statutory recognition by 'enactments like s. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Having consented to have the controversy between the parties resolved by reference to arbitration through Court, the. defendant deprived himself of the right to question the authority of the Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l'. `Every Appeal' shall be filed within 30 days before the National Company Law Tribunal which may admit the `Appeal' to be filed after expiry of 30 days if it is satisfied that there was `Sufficient Cause' for not filing an `Appeal' within 30 days but such period shall not exceed 15 days. 111). As far as the present case is concerned, the `Insolvency Proceedings' was filed in the month of June 2019 before the `Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench) against the Corporate Debtor in regard to the repayment of dues. In June 2019, the States of Telengana and Andhra Pradesh were under the jurisdiction `Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Bench at Hyderabad. Although, the Amaravati Bench of the `Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal), was notified on 08.03.2019 for the State of Andhra Pradesh (vide Ministry of Corporate Affairs notification published in `The Gazette of India Extraordinary' it became effective only from August 2019 (as seen from the 1st Cause List of Amaravati Bench (vide Annexure 5 - page 46 of the Appeal Paper Book / Typed Set of Papers - Diary No.20448 dated 13.07.2020). 112). It cannot be ig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for commencement of `CIRP' against the `Corporate Debtor'. Glimpse of NCLT Rules, 2016: 115). In this connection, this `Tribunal' aptly points out that Rule 37 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 deals with `Notice to Opposite Party'. Rule 38 speaks of `Service of Notices and Processes'. Rule 41 relates to `Filing of Reply and other Documents by the Respondents'. Rule 42 concerns with `Filing of Rejoinder'. Rule 44 pertains to hearing of `Petitions or Applications'. Rule 45 of NCLT Rules, 2016, refers to `Rights of a Party to appear before the Tribunal'. Rule 48 speaks of `Consequence of Non-appearance of Applicant'. Rule 49 pertains to `Exparte Hearing and Disposal'. 116). In the present case, despite the fact that the `Appellant' has come out with the issue of `Territorial Jurisdiction', which was not projected at the earliest point of time, before the `Adjudicating Authority' on the side of the `Corporate Debtor', considering the fact that one Mr. Sunil, Director of the Corporate Debtor had presented himself before the Adjudicating Authority on 18.07.2019 and sought time to engage an Advocate and later, the `Corporate Debtor' had not acted in a diligent manner by not taking adequa....