Bombay HC Conducts Emergency Hearing from CJ’s Residence as Court Staff Deployed for Elections  ||  Madras HC: Preventive Detention Laws are Draconian, Cannot be Used to Curb Dissent or Settle Politics  ||  HP HC: Mere Interest in a Project Cannot Justify Impleading a Non-Signatory in Arbitration  ||  J&K&L HC: Women Accused in Non-Bailable Offences Form a Distinct Class Beyond Sec 437 CrPC Rigour  ||  Bombay HC Restores IMAX’s Enforcement of Foreign Awards Against E-City, Applying Res Judicata  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Bail For Man Accused of Assault Causing Miscarriage  ||  J&K&L High Court Invalidates Residence-Based Reservation, Citing Violation of Article 16  ||  Kerala HC Denies Parole to Life Convict in TP Chandrasekharan Murder Case For Cousin's Funeral  ||  High Court Grants Bail to J&K Bank Manager in Multi-Crore Loan Fraud Case, Emphasizing Bail As Rule  ||  J&K HC: Civil Remedy Alone Cannot Be Used To Quash Criminal Proceedings in Enso Tower Case    

Ashish Chandravandan Patel, Suspended Board of Director of Cengres Tiles Ltd. Vs. Axis Bank Ltd. and Ors. - (NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) (30 May 2022)

Any Member of the Bench can pronounce the order for and on behalf of the Bench

MANU/NL/0350/2022

Insolvency

Present Appeal has been filed against order by which order the application under Section 7 filed by the Financial Creditor has been admitted. Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the order contends that the pronouncement of the order is not in accordance with Rule 151 and 152 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (NCLT Rules). It is submitted that it is clear that the order bears signature of only one member - Member Judicial and there is no signature of the other member of the Bench i.e. Member Technical. He submits that as per Rule 152, if any Member who has heard the matter is not available then approval of the President is required, which is not reflected by the record. He further submits that when other Member, who has heard the matter was not available to sign the order, it should have been released form the part-heard and listed for hearing afresh.

Rule 151(1) empowers any Member of the Bench to pronounce the order for and on behalf of the Bench. The order indicates that one of the Member of the Bench, who heard the matter was not available for another couple of weeks and matter cannot be kept pending for pronouncement because hearing was concluded almost a month ago. The order clearly mentions that the order was pronounced under Rule 151 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 with consent of the other Member. There is no error in the pronouncement of order by one Member with consent of the other Member of the Bench under Rule 151 of the NCLT Rules.

Rule 152(4) on which reliance is placed is with regard to the matter where the order cannot be signed by reason of death, retirement or resignation or for any other reason by any one of the Members of the Bench who heard the case. Present is not the case where order cannot be signed by reason of death, retirement or resignation or for any other reason. Present is the case where the Technical Member was to be available after a couple of weeks to sign the order and with his consent the order was pronounced. There is no occasion for application of Rule 152(4). There is clear debt and default which finding is not questioned before present Tribunal in section 7 Application. There is no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed.

Tags : APPLICABILITY   PROVISION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved