Supreme Court: Borrowers Retain Redemption Rights if Balance is Paid After Auction Deadline  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A Impacts Adjudication Proceedings  ||  SC: Blacklisting After Contract Termination is Not Automatic and Needs Independent Review  ||  Grand Venice Fraud Case: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin  ||  SC: Senior Employee Cannot Claim Same Lesser Penalty As Subordinate; Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld  ||  Madras HC: Governor Must Follow Cabinet's Advice on Remission Decisions, Regardless of Personal View  ||  Kerala High Court: Entrepreneurs Must Be Protected From Baseless Protests to Boost Industrial Growth  ||  J&K&L High Court: Second FIR Valid if it Reveals a Broader Conspiracy; 'Test of Sameness' is Key  ||  Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment    

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