2022 (10) TMI 929

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) No. 185 of 2021, as an `Affected Person', before this `Tribunal', on being `dissatisfied' with the `impugned order' dated 30.04.2021 in IBA/1297/2019, passed by the `Adjudicating Authority', (`National Company Law Tribunal', Division Bench - II, Chennai). 3. The `Adjudicating Authority', (`National Company Law Tribunal', Division Bench - II, Chennai), while passing the `impugned order' dated 30.04.2021 in IBA/1297/2019, at paragraph 6, had observed the following: 6. ``On perusal of documents, it is clear that various meetings between both parties were held, to arrive at amicable settlement. Since, the respondent has not filed reply, the responsibility of the applicant to prove `debt' and `default' is very high. The onus is on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Bench - II, Chennai), had failed to take note of the factum of filing of the `Counter' / `Reply' / `Response', of the Respondent and hence there has occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice, which needs to be rectified by this `Appellate Tribunal'. 6. At this juncture, this `Tribunal', on going through the `impugned order' dated 30.04.2021 in IBA/1297/2019, passed by the `Adjudicating Authority' (`National Company Law Tribunal', Division Bench - II, Chennai) at Paragraph 6, is of the considered view that the `Adjudicating Authority', had observed incorrectly as that the Respondent had not filed its `Reply' and this erroneous observation, is opposed to the `available materials on record'. 7. As a matter of fact, the factum of fili....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s clearly an erroneous one, and there appears to be a `Costly Lapse' / `Omission', on the part of the `Adjudicating Authority' in not noticing the `filing of Counter / Reply', in a proper and real perspective. Therefore, this `Tribunal', without going in to the merits of the `Controversies' / `Disputes', between the respective `Parties' and not delving deep in to the same, without any `Haziness', simpliciter comes to an `inevitable', `inescapable' and `irresistible' conclusion that the `Adjudicating Authority' (`National Company Law Tribunal', Division Bench - II, Chennai), had committed a serious `Material Irregularity' and `Patent Illegality' in passing the `impugned order' and this `Appellate Tribunal', to prevent an `Aberration of Justi....