TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 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 Adjudicating Authority directed the Financial Creditor to send another n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Petitioner. The Petitioner has also placed on record proof of sending notices and paper publication. The Petitioner has complied with all the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orporate 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 that, according to the `Appellant' that despite the 1st Respondent/Bank, being aware of the change of address of the `Corporate Debtor' at the time of filing t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 consider that the `Corporate Debtor' had changed its Registered Address much before the initiation of the proceedings by the Rs. 1st Respondent'/`Bank'. 16). The Learned Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffer. 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 rights or interests in such property. A court has no jurisdiction over a dispute in which it cannot give an effective judgment. The proviso to Section 16, no doubt, states that though the court cannot, in case of imm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 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 passed by a court having no jurisdiction is non est and its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced as a foundation for a right, even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings. A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dicating 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, leave alone due service of notice to the petitioner. Therefore, this Tribunal has to consider this fact in the right perspective and set aside the ex-parte order dated November 22, 2016. 9. There is need to address to what had happened to the actions that have been undertaken by original respondent No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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, the Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to restrain the `Corporate Debtor' and its Directors from alienate, encumbering or creating any third party interest on the assets of the `Corporate Debtor'. No such power can be exercised under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016. 10. From the aforesaid provisions, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation 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 High Court. An appeal against the Tribunal lies before the High Court. The High Court, while exercising its appellate power, would follow the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure or akin thereto. In view of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the appellate court to pose unto itself the right....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rejudice 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 of general principles governing the matter, there can be no doubt that the District Court of Monghyr was `coram non judice' and that its judgment and decree would be nullities. The question is what is the effect of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act on this position. 7. Section 11 enacts that notwithstanding anything in Section 578 of the Code of Civil Procedure an objection that a court which had no jurisdiction over a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Ambica Industries v. CCE MANU/SC/7727/2007 : 2007 (213) ELT323(SC)]. We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the appellant herein was a labourer. The justness or otherwise of the amount of compensation has not been disputed before us. If the High Court judgment is to be complied with, appellant would again have to initiate another proceeding either at Bareilly or Gurgaon or at Delhi or at Jabalpur. The same evidence would have to be rendered once again. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mplete 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. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman MANU/SC/0531/1970 : (1970) 1 SCC 670, the Petitioner filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad for ejecting the Defendant-tenant. The suit was eventually decreed in his favour by this Court. During execution proceedings, the Defendant-tenant raised an objection that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and its decree was a nullity. The court executing the decree and the Court of Small Causes rejected the contention. The High Court reversed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cuting 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 2016, on the file of `Debt Recovery Tribunal', Hyderabad', for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,63,07,900/- (Rupees Twenty Crore Sixty Three Lakhs Seven Thousand and Nine Hundred Only) along with pendenlite and future interest @ 14.80%. Further, the `Debt Recovery Tribunal - 1', Hyderabad, in O.A. No. 1331 of 2016 through its order dated 12.10.2018 had observed that the Bank was also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the `Defendants', towards realisation of its `Dues'. 32). It is the plea of the Rs. 1st Respondent/Bank' (in its `Reply....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t'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 `Territorial Jurisdiction', despite making appearance before the `Adjudicating Authority'. As a matter of fact, only after the `CIRP' proceedings were admitted, the `Appellant' filed an `Application' as per Rule 49 (2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, and simultaneously filed `Civil Revision Petition No. 2508 of 2019 and that on 30.10.2019, `Stay' was granted by the `Hon'ble High Court of Telengana'. Because of the `Stay', the `Adjudicating Authority' had not proceeded with the application filed under Rule 49 (2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016. 38). In this connection, the Lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Rs. 1st Respondent/Bank' that the order dated 12.10.2018 in O.A. No. 1331 of 2016 passed by `Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Hyderabad, has become a `final' and `conclusive' one between the parties. Besides these, the aspect of `Territorial Jurisdiction' was raised only on 16.10.2019, after the `Application' filed under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016, by the Rs. 1st Respondent/Bank' was admitted, after a period of three months from the date of Appellant making an appearance before the `Adjudicating Authority' on 18.07.2019. Pleas of Second Respondent : 43). It is represented on behalf of the Rs. 2nd Respondent'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 `Information/Accounts/Records' for the period relating to 2019 - 2020. 48). The `Appellant' has not handover the `Assets' or `Books' to the `Resolution Professional' and also refused to permit the `Prospective Resolution Applicants' to have a look of the premises. In fact, neither the `Corporate Debtor' nor his `Learned Counsel' raised any objection at the time of hearing, pertaining to the issue of `jurisdiction', before the `Adjudicating Authority'. 49). The `Attendance Sheet' of the `Adjudicating Authority' of the `National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad Bench, on 18.07.2019 in CP (IB) No.374/7/HDB/2019, in respect of M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egulations, 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 extension of `CIRP' period for a further period of 120 days, beyond the time limit of 180 days pursuant to Section 12 of the I & B Code, 2016 and authorized the `Resolution Professional' to prefer an extension application before the `Adjudicating Authority' seeking its approval. 56). According to the Rs. 2nd Respondent', the `Appellant' is attempting to delay/derail the `Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' and he has failed to settle the loan through OTS shall make repayment by taking recourse to the `Legal Process'. Gist of 3rd Respondent's Report : 57). The Assistant Registrar on behalf of the 3rd Respondent in his Report dated 21.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 08.03.2019 and from that date, the `National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad Bench, no longer possessed the `jurisdiction', to entertain or decide `Petitions'/`Applications' which did not come within the `Territorial Jurisdiction', of `National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad Bench. A party should not suffer for the fault of his/its `Advocate' and that the `Appellant' in the instant case, cannot be faulted for the absence of his `Advocate'. 66). The lack of `Territorial Jurisdiction', in the instant case, goes to the root of the matter, as the `National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad Bench, does not qualify to be an `Adjudicating Authority', as per the provisions o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 is `no Estoppel' on a point of Law going to the `jurisdiction' of a `Court'. A person may be prevented by way of his action or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak from asserting a `Right' which he would have otherwise had as per decision of the `Hon'ble Supreme Court' in State of Punjab & Ors. V Dhanjit Singh Sandhu (CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 5698-5699 OF 2009 - decided on 14.03.2014) reported in AIR 2014 SC Page 3004. 75). In `Estoppel' because of a person's own act or acceptance or stopeth or closeth up his mouth to allege or plead the truth (vide 10 RCL 675). Judicial Estoppel: 76). In the course of litigation, a `party' is not allowed to assume an inconsistent and contradictory po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplicant'/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 Director' had mentioned that, as per Section 60 of the `I & B' Code, `Petition' shall be filed before `National Company Law Tribunal', having `territorial jurisdiction' over the place where the `Registered Office' of the `Corporate Persons' is located and that the `Registered Office' of the `Corporate Debtor' is located in Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, and hence, the `National Company Law Tribunal', `Amaravati Bench' has a `jurisdiction' to entertain the `Company Petition' and not the `Tribunal', Hyderabad. 84). As a matter of fact, the `Applicant/Corporate Debtor' in I.A.No. 901 of 2019 had prayed for staying of all further proceedings pursuant to the `Exparte Order' dt. 27.09.2019 in CP (IB) No. 374/7/HDB/2019 (including t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....`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 Steel Private Limited' (as Petitioner) against the Rs. 1st Respondent/Corporation Bank', on 30.10.2019, the `Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telengana, Hyderabad had stayed the operational of the Order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the `Adjudicating Authority' (NCLT, Hyderabad Bench) in CP (IB)/374/7/HDB/2019 till 20.11.2019. Added further, on 06.12.2019, in CRP No.2508 of 2019, the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telengana, Hyderabad, had made an observation that `if the Revision Petitioner intends to assail the Impugned Order, he has to file an appeal before the `Appellate Tribunal' and accordingly dismissed the `Civil Revision Petition' without costs. 91). On behalf of the Rs. 1st Respondent/Bank', it is brought to the notice of this `Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....' 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 with an endorsement "Left". 97). There is no two opinion of the fact that the `Corporate Debtor' had approached the Rs. 1st Respondent/Corporation Bank', Hyderabad and `Vijaya Bank', Banjara Hills for availing the `Loan facilities' to an extent of Rs.14,75,00,000/- under the `Consortium Banking Arrangements'. The Rs. 1st Respondent/Applicant/Financial Creditor' and the `Vijaya Bank' upon verification, execution of documents, etc., was pleased to disburse the `Loan Amount' to the `Corporate Debtor'. 98). In August 2013, the `Corporate Debtor' had approached the `Consortium Banks' for renewal of the existing `Working Capital Facility' and fresh `Working Capital Facility' of Rs.2 Crore from the Rs. 1st Respondent/Bank', and Rs.2 Crore from `Vijaya Bank' and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 `Reserved'. 102). The `Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench) after satisfying itself that the 1st Respondent/Bank had satisfied with the requirements as enunciated under the `I & B' Code, 2016 had admitted the main CP(IB) No. 374/7/HDB/2019 on 27.09.2019 and appointed an `Insolvency Professional' as an `Interim Resolution Professional', as proposed by the Rs. 1st Respondent/Financial Creditor'. 103). Before the `Adjudicating Authority' on 18.07.2019 hearing date of the main CP (IB) No.374/7/HDB/2019 the `Corporate Debtor's Director Mr. Sunil had appeared and prayed for time to engage an Advocate and to file a `Reply'. Based on the said `Directors' request, the `Adjudicating Authority' had adjourned the matter to 08.08.2019. On 08....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. 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 Court to refer the matter to arbitration or of the arbitrator to render the award. It is clear, therefore, that the defendant is estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain the suit and to make the reference to the arbitrator. He is equally estopped from challenging the authority of the arbitrator to render the award. In our opinion this conclusion is sufficient to dispose of the appeal. It, is not, therefore, necessary to determine the other points in controversy, including the question whether The Decrees and Orders Validating Act, 1936 (Act V of 1936) had the effect of validating what otherwise may have been invalid." 106). It cannot be brushed aside that the parties submitting to the `jurisdiction' of the Court even arguing at a later stage would n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), 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 ignored that in the present case, when the main CP (IB)/374/7/HDB/2019 was adjourned and listed on 08.08.2019 and on that day, the Appellant's Counsel had not appeared on account of Viral Fever. It comes to be known that the main Company Petition was heard and orders were reserved on 26.08.2019 and further, that the Appellant had not made any arrangements for advancing arguments on 26.08.2019 and later the Petition was admitted for `CIRP' on 27.09.2019 by the `Adjudicating Authority'. 113). In the instant case on hand, notwithstanding the fact that the Appellant has come out with a plea that the Registered Office Address of the Corporate Debtor had changed w.e.f. 27.05.2014 and the same was reflected to be the same on the Website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs (vide page 44 of the Appeal Paper Book - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 adequate steps to advance arguments on 26.08.2019 when orders were reserved by the `Adjudicating Authority' in the main CP(IB) No.374/7/HDB/2019, and later, on 29.07.2019, when the main Company Petition was admitted and the `CIRP' commenced against the `Corporate Debtor', this `Tribunal' comes to a resultant conclusion that the `Corporate Debtor' through its Director Mr. Sunil had submitted to the Jurisdiction of the `Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench) and the aforesaid `Director' had failed to avail the opportunity to put forth the objections of the `Corporate Debtor' and the IA No. 900 of 2019 (to stay all further proceedings, pursuant to Exparte Order dated 27.09.2019 in main CP(IB) No. 374/7/HDB/2019) & I.A. No. 901 of 2019 (to set aside the `Exparte Order dated 27.09.2019 in ....