TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench - II, Chennai) by which an application bearing I.A.(IBC)/303/Che/2022 filed in I.A. No. 836/2021 in IBA/579/2019 by the Appellant for setting aside the order dated 01.02.2022 by which the Appellant has been proceeded against ex-parte. Although, the order dated 01.02.2022 has been set aside by the impugned order but the Adjudicating Authority has directed the Appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the liquidation account of the Liquidator and further the liquidator is directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit and not to use it for any other purpose till the disposal of the application I.A. No. 836 of 2021 and that in the event, the application I.A. No. 836 of 2021 is decided in favour ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant, the relationship between the Corporate Debtor and the Appellant regarding the installation of ATM, within the premise of Corporate Debtor, was on account of a lease agreement dated 08.04.2011 in which the address of the Appellant has been given as "City Union Bank Limited, registered office at No. 149, TSR (Big) Street, Kumbakonam". It is also its case that as per clause 16 of the lease agreement, it was agreed between the parties that "notices intended to be served on the lessor and lessee shall be at the same address as herein above mentioned and the said notices are deemed to have been served on the lessor or lessee as the case may be if they are sent under registered post." 4. In order to substantiate her argument, she has also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he has further submitted that even otherwise the Appellant is not liable to pay any amount of lease which has wrongly been claimed by the Liquidator in the application bearing I.A. No. 836 of 2021 as the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor are bound by the lease agreement in which there is no reference of payment of lease amount or rent by the Appellant (Bank). As according to her, ATM facility was provided within the premises of the Corporate Debtor to facilitate its workers to use the ATM. It is therefore, submitted that the Liquidator, on his own, calculated the amount of rent and claimed a huge amount of Rs. 16.20 lakhs. She has further submitted that even though the Adjudicating Authority had set aside the order dated 01.02.2022 but the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der which probably the Court may not have made in the suit itself. As pointed out in the case of Arjun Singh (supra), the purpose of Rule 7 in its essence is to ensure the orderly conduct of the proceedings by penalizing improper dilatoriness calculated merely to prolong the litigation." 5. On the other hand, Counsel app earing on behalf of the Liquidator has submitted that the Appellant is estopped from taking the plea of his ignorance about the pendency of the proceedings on account of non-service of notice at the registered office address. In this regard, she has referred to the reply dated 02.06.2021 which is purported to have been sent by Shri K. M. Boopathi, Advocate on behalf of the Appellant to the Counsel for the Liquidator in r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....favour of the Appellant which has been allowed to participate in the proceedings despite the fact that they chose not to appear earlier despite service and knowing about the proceedings. 8. We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The entire case of the Appellant, set up in the appeal as well as argued before us is that the notice of the application I.A. No. 836 of 2021 should have been served at the registered office address instead of branch address. The Appellant has not denied the fact that the reply to the notice dated 26.04.2021 served by the Liquidator at the branch address was given by the branch of the Appellant. Meaning thereby, the Appellant knew about the proceedings initiated by the Liquidator whic....