TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 924
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... For Mr. P. Gowtham, Advocate For the Respondent : None JUDGEMENT [Per: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma;(Member Judicial)] 1) The Impugned Orders, which are under challenge, in these four Company Appeals are of the same date i.e., 21.03.2025. These four Company Appeals involve consideration of a common question of fact and law. Hence, for the purposes of brevity, they are being taken up together. 2) The impugned order dated 21.03.2025, have been respectively rendered in the following Company Petitions being CP(IB)/233(CHE)/2024, CP(IB)/230(CHE)/2024, CP(IB)/231(CHE)/2024 and lastly CP(IB)/232(CHE)/2024. 3) The orders passed thereon on these Company Petitions will have the same consequential and legal implication for the procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sustained. 5) The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further submitted that, the orders, even otherwise, procedurally suffer from defect because, they have been the respondents in the proceedings being carried on before the NCLT, Division Bench-I, Chennai, on 30.01.2025, in IBA No. 702/2020 and also, in various other IAs i.e., IBA No. 712/2020, IBA No. 711/2020, IBA No. 720/2020 and IBA No. 703/2020, filed in the respective Company Petitions, preferred by decided together. If the aforesaid Banks including State Bank of India, their Counsel (that is, the Learned Counsel for the Personal Guarantors) brought to the knowledge of the Learned NCLT Division Bench-I, Chennai, that, there are other Company Petitions which have been preferred b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 30.01.2025, of NCLT Division bench- I, being the nature of recording of an intimation given to NCLT, Division Bench-I, Chennai, cannot be drawn as to be the basis to derive a source or an authority for making a mention by the Counsel of the Financial Institution in the proceedings of the Company Petition being carried in Bench-II, without being the party to it. 3. And even if at all, based on the order of 30.01.2025, any mention was required to be made by the Petitioner of IBA No. 702/2020, IBA No. 712/2020, IBA No. 711/2020, IBA No. 720/2020 & IBA No. 703/2020 i.e., the Banking Institutions, then atleast in all fairness it was expected that, the Petitioner to the aforesaid IBAs ought to have given a prior intimation to the Petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the mention, which was made by the Counsel for the Financial Institutions and in the absence there being a prior information, the order as rendered unilaterally believing the mention to be true, would to be suffering from the Audi Alteram Partem and being violative of the Principles of natural justice. 9) There is yet another aspect which has been argued by Learned Counsel for the Appellant which is that, in the proceedings, which were being held in the Company Petitions, CP(IB) 223/2024, 230/2024, 231/2024 & 232/2024, the arguments got concluded on 19.02.2025 and the order was reserved and the matter was thereafter directed to be listed for pronouncement of judgment. The relevant observation made in the order of 19.02.2025, is ext....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as detailed above, which were pending consideration before the NCLT, Division Bench-I, Chennai. 11) It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that, there was no prior notice issued to the Appellant, prior to passing of the Impugned order, though on the said date, the matter was fixed for delivery of order. He submits that, if at all, a mention at the behest of the Counsel, who is not a party to the proceedings to the Company Petition is at all to be accepted and the Impugned order is passed, based on such mention, it will amount to sitting over the order, which was expected to be delivered on the date fixed, that is, 21.03.2025. He has further argued that when the matter was listed for pronouncement of order, no new fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any iota of doubt and more particularly, the procedural impropriety, such should have been avoided, so as to repose confidence in the public at large with regards to the justice dispensation system being discharged by the Tribunal. 12) Summarizing, as the orders have been passed exclusively, upon a mention being made by the Counsel for the Financial institution, and that too, by a party who is not a party to proceedings, and that too without prior intimation to the Appellants herein who were the petitioners in the Company Petition, and also because the date on which the mention was accepted and the Impugned Order was passed, was a date fixed for delivery of order after the arguments stood concluded on 19.02.2025, the Tribunal ought to h....