Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

DCB Bank Limited, acting as the Financial Creditor, filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against M/s. Fort Biotech Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor. This application was admitted on 8th March, 2019. Subsequently, an application was filed on behalf of the Corporate Debtor for review or recall of the admission order, contending non-receipt of notice due to a dispute between the Corporate Debtor and its landlord. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench) rejected this application on 7th June, 2019, holding that it lacked power to review or recall the order under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Adjudicating Authority has the power to review or recall its order admitting an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
  2. Whether the absence of receipt of notice by the Corporate Debtor due to a dispute with the landlord justifies recall of the admission order.
  3. Whether Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 empowers the Adjudicating Authority to amend its order in the absence of any apparent mistake.
  4. Whether principles of natural justice, as mandated by Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013, require limited notice before admission of an application under Section 7 of the I&B Code.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • The Corporate Debtor argued that it had not received notice of the insolvency application due to a dispute with the landlord of its premises.
  • The appellant contended that this non-receipt of notice warranted review or recall of the admission order dated 8th March, 2019.
  • Reference was made to Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013, emphasizing the requirement of natural justice and proper notice.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Adjudicating Authority maintained that notice was duly issued and served to the Corporate Debtor.
  • Despite service, the Corporate Debtor failed to appear, compelling the Authority to proceed on merit and admit the application.
  • It was asserted that there was no apparent mistake in the order, thus Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 was not applicable.
  • The Corporate Debtor accepted the existence of debt and default, indicating inability to settle the claim, making any further opportunity futile.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank & Anr. (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1 & 2 of 2017) Requirement of limited notice to Corporate Debtor before admission of an application under Sections 7, 9, or 10 of the I&B Code. The Court affirmed that the Adjudicating Authority was required to issue limited notice before passing the admission order under Section 7 of the I&B Code and found that such notice was indeed issued and served.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the scope of the Adjudicating Authority’s power to review or recall its order under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 and Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. It concluded that since there was no apparent mistake or typographical error in the admission order, the Authority could not amend or recall it under Section 420(2). The Court emphasized the principle of natural justice as mandated by Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013, noting that limited notice was required and had been duly issued and served to the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor’s non-appearance despite service of notice justified the admission order. The Court further noted that the Corporate Debtor conceded the existence of debt and default, rendering any opportunity for recall futile. Consequently, the Court upheld the impugned order denying review or recall.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED the application for review or recall of the admission order dated 8th March, 2019.

The direct effect of this decision is the maintenance of the insolvency admission order against M/s. Fort Biotech Private Limited. No broader precedent was set beyond affirming the limited scope for review or recall of such orders in the absence of apparent mistakes and confirming the requirement and sufficiency of notice to the Corporate Debtor before admission under Section 7 of the I&B Code.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Dinesh Goyal v. Dcb Bank Ltd. .

    10.07.2019 DCB Bank Limited- (Financial Creditor) filed application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code for short) against M/s. Fort Biotech Private Limited- (Corporate Debtor) which was admitted on 8th March, 2019.

    2. Though no petition on behalf of the Corporate Debtor- (M/s. Fort Biotech Private Limited) was maintainable through the suspended Board of Directors having taken over by the Interim Resolution Professional on behalf of the Corporate Debtor, an application was filed for review or recall of the order dated 8th March, 2019 on the ground that the Corporate Debtor had not received the notice as there was a dispute between the landlord of premises with the Corporate Debtor. Contd/-..

    3. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Jaipur Bench (Rajasthan) by impugned order dated 7th June, 2019 held that it has no power of review nor it can recall the order under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016.

    4. Section 420 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013, reads as follows:

    420. Orders of Tribunal..(2) The Tribunal may, at any time within two years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it, and shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the parties: Provided that no such amendment shall be made in respect of any order against which an appeal has been preferred under this Act.

    5. In the present case, as there is no mistake apparent from the record and in absence of any typographical error, it was not open to the Adjudicating Authority to take any recourse of sub-section (2) of Section

    420 of the Companies Act, 2013. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 702 of 2019

    6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant referred to Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 which mandates the National Company Law Tribunal to pass orders following principles of natural justice.

    7. This Appellate Tribunal in M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank & Anr. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.s. 1 & 2 of 2017 has already held that before admission of an application under Sections 7, 9 or 10, limited notice should be given to the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, it is needless to say that the Adjudicating Authority was required to issue limited notice to the Corporate Debtor before passing any order under Section 7 of the I&B Code.

    8. However, it is not in dispute that the Adjudicating Authority issued notice on the Corporate Debtor which was served. In spite of service of notice, the Corporate Debtor had not appeared and thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority had no option but to proceed on merit and pass order which was passed on 8th March, 2019.

    9. The only plea taken by the Appellant is that the Appellant has not received any notice as there was a dispute between the landlord with the Corporate Debtor with regard to office of the Corporate Debtor, but such ground cannot be accepted for recall of the order dated 8th March, 2019. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 702 of 2019

    10. We asked learned counsel for the Appellant to address this Appellate Tribunal as to what stand the Corporate Debtor could have taken before the Adjudicating Authority prior to admission of the application under Section 7 of the I&B Code. However, pursuant to the said question it is accepted that there is debt and default and the Corporate Debtor is not in a position to settle the claim. In that view of the matter, any opportunity to the Corporate Debtor will be a futile exercise and we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 7th June, 2019.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Dinesh Goyal v. Dcb Bank Ltd. .
    (Jul 10, 2019)