TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a , Member ( T ) ] 1. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench -II) in CP(IB)348/7/HDB/2020, the Appellant preferred this Appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Code'). By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has observed as follows: "For continuation of hearing, list this matter on 20.12.2022. Since these matters are part heard, the files are transmitted to the Bench-I. Any mentions pertaining to the part heard matters shall be hereafter made before the Bench-I." 2. Mr. P.H. Arvindh Pandian, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant has vehemently argued that s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has not adhered to the 'Principles of Natural Justice' and that an opportunity ought to have been given to file 'Counter' on merits before treating the matter as 'Part Heard' and, therefore, sought for setting aside the impugned order dated 05.12.2022 on the ground that the proceedings were conducted in an arbitrary manner on account of which rights of the Appellant are irreparably affected. 3. Ms. Fatema Kachwalla, Learned Counsel appearing for the Financial Creditor opposed the Appeal on the ground that the Appellant had filed their reply to the Section 7 Application after being given multiple opportunities; that the Section 7 Application was listed for the first time before the Adjudicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pleted their arguments but the Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant had time and again sought adjournments on 16.11.2022, 22.11.2022, 25.11.2022, 05.12.2022 & on 20.12.2022. It is submitted that the impugned order is a technical one and the matter is partly heard and, therefore, ought not be interfered with as there is 'Stay' on the implementation of the CIRP vide order dated 27.08.2021, it is essential that the Section 7 Application and other Applications filed against the Corporate Debtor under Section 7 & 9 of the Code are heard and disposed of. 4. The 2nd Respondent i.e., the Deputy Registrar of NCLT, Hyderabad -II has filed their 'Reply' stating that pleadings in Company Petition No. CP(IB) No. 348/7/HDB/2020 were completed by 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter' within a week. It is the case of the Appellant that only a 'Preliminary Counter' was filed in August, 2022 reserving their rights to file a final 'Counter' on merits. 7. With the order dated 19.09.2022, the Adjudicating Authority has noted that the Financial Creditor has filed their 'Rejoinder' and the Learned Senior Counsel for the Corporate Debtor has received the 'Counter' and that the pleadings were complete. At this juncture the relevant order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority is detailed as hereunder: "Learned Senior Counsel for the Financial Creditor appeared. Learned Senior Counsel for Corporate Debtor appeared via video conference and made submissions. In all the connected matters, the submission on be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imposition of Rs. 50,000/-, the Corporate Debtor failed to file the 'Reply' for two long years and subsequently chose to file a 'Preliminary Counter'. The Code is a 'Time Bound Proceeding' which does not provide for filing a 'Preliminary Counter' and subsequent 'Final Counter', which is nothing but delaying tactic adopted by the Appellant herein, in support of their submissions that the pleadings are not 'complete'. The Orders dated 19.09.2022 & 25.11.2022 clearly show that all the pleadings have been completed and the Appellant/ Corporate Debtor has delayed the matter seeking several adjournments. The 'Hon'ble Supreme Court' in a `catena of Judgments', has time and again laid down that the 'IBC is a time bound process', and any such delays....