Allahabad HC Detains Woman IO till 4 PM, Fines her Rs.5K for not Seizing POCSO Accused’s Mobile  ||  Allahabad HC Questions Fake Victim Age Certificates in POCSO Cases; UP Government Drafts Guidelines  ||  Gujarat HC: ‘Self-Negligence’ Bars Compensation to Heirs of Driver Killed at Unmanned Crossing  ||  UK Court of Appeal Dismisses India's Bid to Challenge Arbitration over Andhra Bauxite Project  ||  CCPA Imposes Rs. 1 Lakh Penalty on Britannia Over Misleading ‘100% Whole Wheat Bread’ Claim  ||  Delhi High Court Upholds SEM Notice Asking Neha Bora to Sign Peace Bond Beyond Mere Hearsay  ||  Allahabad High Court: Rape Victims Cannot Be Denied Compensation for Lack of Medical Report  ||  Kerala High Court Quashes Guideline Restricting Production of Arrested Persons After 5 PM  ||  Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal of Two in Electric Fence Death of 11-Year-Old  ||  MP High Court Allows Tree Felling for Indore Metro, Orders Phased Cutting under Expert Watch    

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