TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1084
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent herein. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.05.2025, this appeal has been filed. 2. Brief background facts which are necessary to be noticed for deciding the appeal are : i. On an application filed under Section 7 by the financial creditor in a class, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor M/s. Real Anchors Developers Private Limited commenced vide order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the NCLT New Delhi Bench - V. ii. In the CIRP of the corporate debtor, appellant filed its claim on 31.10.2023. Against the order admitting Section 7 application, the respondent suspended director of the corporate debtor has filed Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.1404/2023. iii. In the appeal on 22.10.2023 an interim order was passed directing the IRP to collate the claims received but was not to constitute Committee of Creditors (CoC) till the next date of hearing. iv. The suspended directors entered into settlement with the original Section 7 applicants. Appellant also filed an application before the NCLT seeking direction before the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) for adjudication of the claim of the appellant. v. The Comp. App. AT (Ins.) No.1404/202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Respondent No. 1 filed the application for transfer without impleading necessary parties to the Transfer Application. Respondent No. 1 has impleaded the only IRP in Transfer Application and order of transfer was passed. It is submitted that the bench which heard the matter on 25.05.2025 did not reserve the judgment and has only directed the parties to file their written submissions hence, there was no necessity of transferring the matter to the bench which had heard on 25.02.2025. It is submitted that Regular Bench of Court - V proceeded with the matter, which was fully competent to hear and decide the matter. It is submitted that appellant who has already filed the claim has filed an application before the adjudicating authority seeking a direction to consider his claim and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Glass Trust Company LLC' (Supra), appellant was also a stakeholder who was required to be heard by President before transferring the matter. It is submitted that the procedure adopted in deciding the Transfer Application is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that after the transfer of the proceeding to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LT and the order passed by the President is the order of the NCLT, which is appealable under Section 421 of the Act. 7. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. The first question which need to be considered is as to whether appeal against the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the President in exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 is maintainable under Section 61. Section 61 of the IBC provides as follows: "61. Appeals and Appellate Authority. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act 2013, any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty days1 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal: Provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period shall not exceed fifteen days. (3) An appeal against an order appr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that if at any stage of the hearing of any such case or matter, it appears to the Member that the case or matter is of such a nature that it ought to be heard by a Bench consisting of two Members, the case or matter may be transferred by the President, or, as the case may be, referred to him for transfer, to such Bench as the President may deem fit." 11. By virtue of Section 419(3) read with Rule 16(d), President in passing an order under Rule 16(d) exercises the power of the NCLT. Section 421 provides for appeal from orders of Tribunal. Section 421 of the Act is as follows: "421. Appeal from orders of Tribunal - (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. (2) No appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal from an order made by the Tribunal with the consent of parties. (3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within a period of forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order of the Tribunal is made available to the person aggrieved and shall be in such form, and accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed: Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP") by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Hon'ble NCLT") on 16.10.2023. The Appellant filed its claim on 31.10.2023, which was undoubtedly was within time; however, despite the above, the learned IRP did not decide the claim of Appellant, either way in a complete departure to the NCLT Rules, in a bid to facilitate the settlement between the suspended board and the original applicants, before this Hon'ble Tribunal in an Appeal filed by the Respondent No. 01 (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1404 of 2022). Since, the claim of the Appellant was much higher, i.e., more than Rs. 5 Crores, hence, this modus operandi was adopted by the Respondent No. 02, in collusion with Respondent No. 01. b) As per Regulation 13 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, it was obligated upon the IRP to decide the claim of the Appellant Company within 7 days and, when the Appellant Company realized that the IRP with the suspended management, is settling the matter with the original applicants and the IRP was deliberately sitting over the claim of the Appellant Company, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t weeks from today. I.A. No.6610 of 2024 is also disposed of in terms of the above." 17. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Glass Trust Company LLC (Supra), thus lays down the law deciding application under 12A. In the present appeal the issue is with regard to only transfer order dated 09.05.2025 passed by President allowing the Transfer Application filed by Respondent No. 1. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even subsequent to the order of transfer, adjudicating authority was required to give a fresh hearing and has reserved the order on 30.06.2025, are the submissions which needs no consideration in the present appeal, said being submissions on 12A application are not subject matter of this appeal. 19. We, thus are satisfied that the order dated 09.05.2025 cannot be faulted on the ground that appellant was not given any hearing by the President while passing the order. Insofar as the applicants who had initiated Section 7 proceeding, the appeal is not filed by any applicant who was applicant in Section 7 application. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the two judgments of this Tribunal in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.555/202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gistry in the performance of its functions; (c) prepare an annual report on the activities of the Tribunal; (d) transfer any case from one Bench to other Bench when the circumstances so warrant; (e) to withdraw the work or case from the court of a member. (f) perform the functions entrusted to the President under these rules and such other powers as may be relevant to carry out his duties as head of the Tribunal while exercising the general superintendence and control over the administrative functions of the Members, Registrar, Secretary and other staff of the Tribunal" 6. It is prerogative of the President of NCLT to assign a matter to a particular Bench or tag with any other matter. The power under Rule 16(d) has been exercised by the President. We do not find any merit in the submissions of the Counsel for the Appellant that the order is passed under Rule 146 and opportunity is required to be given before passing the order tagging the case with other two matters. Present is not a case where power has been exercised under Rule 146. The power has been exercised by the President under Rule 16(d). We, thus, are of the view that the submission of the Appellant that he was e....