TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 98
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the objector to the Plan Approval Application No. 1A (IBC) Plan/16/KB/2025 seeking a direction upon the Learned Special Bench, National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench to hear out an application being IVN. P (IBC) 25/KB/2025 and for stay of pronouncement of judgment. 2. On a petition being filed by DBS Bank Ltd., a financial creditor, Hindusthan National Glass and Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as Corporate Debtor) was admitted to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (for short CIRP) vide order dated October 21, 2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (for short NCLT), Kolkata Bench in CP(IB) No. 369/KB/2020. The opposite party no. 2 was appointed as Resolution Professional (for short "RP"). A Committee of Creditors (for short "CoC") was constituted in accordance with the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short "IBC") and has been impleaded as the opposite party no. 1 herein. Pursuant to the initiation of the CIRP, the CoC issued invitations for submission of resolution plans from prospective resolution applicants for resolution of the Corpora....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 8, 2025 is conditional and contingent and would render the Resolution Plan financially unfeasible and unviable. He contended that in order to meet the ends of justice, the NCLT ought to have heard the application filed by the petitioner as there is no embargo in that regard after the matter is reserved for orders. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy reported at (2011) 11 SCC 275. 9. Mr. Saha also placed reliance upon a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated March 14, 2018 in W.P. No. 28749/2015 (GM-CPC) in the case of Sri B.P. Virupakshamurthy vs. Smt. Anitha in support such contention. Mr. Saha submitted that a party to a proceeding has a right to get an application heard at any time prior to pronouncement of judgment and in support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of BDR Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Narsingh Shah reported at 2021 SCC Online Del 3889. He further contended that Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 vests the NCLT with inherent powers for meeting the ends of just....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rath vs. JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. reported at 2023 SCC Online NCLAT 2168 in support of his contention that subsequent pleadings after the judgement is reserved should not be entertained. 12. Mr. Sakya Sen, learned Senior Advocate appeared for the opposite party no. 1. He contended that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity of hearing. He contended that the petitioner in their Written Notes of Argument has raised the issues relating to the letter dated June 30, 2025 and the petitioner cannot claim a right of hearing of the application filed after the matter is reserved for order. 13. Heard Mr. Bhargavan learned advocate for the Intervenor. 14. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. 15. The Hon'ble Special Bench constituted by the Hon'ble President NCLT started the hearing of the main matter and the interlocutory applications on July 3, 2025. The hearing of the application filed by the petitioner being IVN.P (IBC) 21/KB/2025 along with other interlocutory applications were heard and reserved for orders on July 10 and 11, 2025. After the matter was reserved for orders, petitioner filed an application being IVN.P (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court. 25. When once the final hearing starts, if the same cannot be concluded on that date, the hearing is adjourned to a future date. The next stage is that the hearing is completed. Upon conclusion of hearing it is only for the convenience of the Tribunal that Rule 150(1) permits making and pronouncement of order after an interval after the conclusion of hearing. 26. Three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court of India in Arjun Singh (supra) observed that once the hearing starts the Civil Procedure Code contemplates only two stages in the trial of the suit: (1) where the hearing is adjourned or (2) where the hearing is completed. 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter held that where the hearing is completed, the parties have no further rights or privileges in the matter and it is only for the convenience of the Court that Order XX Rule 1 permits judgment to be delivered after interval after the hearing is completed. 28. This Court has already observed that Rule 150(1) also permits the Tribunal to make and pronounce order at an interval after conclusion of hearing. Thus, by applying the proposition of law laid down in Arju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on is distinguishable on facts as in the case on hand the application for bringing on record a document was filed after the matter was reserved for orders and not when the arguments were in progress. 36. In Bagai Construction vs. Gupta Building Material Store reported at (2013) 14 SCC 1, after the arguments were concluded and the matter was adjourned for judgment, two applications one under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code for placing on record certain documents and the other under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code seeking permission to recall a witness were filed. 37. In Bagai Construction (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed the word of caution expressed in paragraph 19 of K.K. Velusamy case and observed that when final arguments were heard and the judgment was reserved and only thereafter, in order to improve its case, a party comes forward with such applications to avoid the final judgment against it, such course is not permissible even with the aid of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that after change of various provisions by way of amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. (supra) was whether the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure could have been filed after the learned Trial Court had heard arguments on the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. 47. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that given the nature of the powers vested in the Court under Order XII Rule 6 while a decision thereon may be treated as a "judgment" for the purpose of entertaining an appeal under the Letter Patent, at the stage when the case is reserved for orders, it is still at a stage that would be at best intermediate. It could lead to the conclusion of the suit on account of complete determination of the rights of the parties on the basis of admission and decree would follow. It could equally result in the continuation of the suit wholly or in part on account of rejection of the application seeking judgment on the basis of admission. Therefore, it was held that there was nothing to preclude the learned Trial Court from hearing the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code which was filed even after hearing of the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code was concluded. 48. In the case on hand, the stage when the matte....