A financial creditor challenged an NCLT common order reconstituting the Committee of Creditors in a CIRP, alleging its late-filed written statement was ignored despite recall applications. The High Court found the petitioner had ample opportunities and adjournments, dismissed the writ petition with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P. No.1538/2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. P.S. DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.1538 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MILLER TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE NO.9, EZRA STREET KOLKATA-700 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. SUJIT DUTTA ROY …PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
W.P. No.1538/2024
2
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO.139C, BELAGOLA INDUSTRIAL AREA METAGALLI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE ROAD MYSORE-570 016 UNDER CORPORATE INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS REPRESENTED BY ITS RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL
W.P. No.1538/2024
3
4
W.P. No.1538/2024
(BY SHRI. HEMANTH S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 07/12/2023 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, SPECIAL BENCH, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A) IN IA NO.575/2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND IA NO.326/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN C.P.(IB) NO.123/BB/2019.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.01.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
5
ORDER
This writ petition is presented with following prayers:
“(i) Set aside the common order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Special Bench, Bengaluru (Annexure ”A”) in I.A. No.575/2022 filed by the Respondent No.1 and I.A No.326/2023 filed by the Petitioner in C.P. (IB) No.123/BB/2019;
(ii) Consequently, dismiss I.A. No.575/2022 filed by the Respondent No.1 and allow I.A. No.326/2023 filed by the Petitioner in C.P. (IB) No.123/BB/2019 before the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Special Bench, Bengaluru; (iii) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice and equity.”
W.P. No.1538/2024
6
Polymers Pvt. Ltd. availed loan of Rs.3 crores, out of which, it defaulted in making payment of Rs. 48,48,699/-. On 18.02.2019, petitioner initiated CIRP1 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the NCLT2 and petitioner was made a member of COC3 . In the said CIRP4 , respondent No.1- Canara Bank filed I.A.No.575/2022 on 20.10.2022, with a prayer inter alia to declare the petitioner, respondents No.2-5 (therein) as related parties of corporate debtor; to appoint Shri. Kenekal Chandrashekhar as RP5 and to reconstitute COC. On 28.04.2023, petitioner filed I.A.No.326/2023 praying inter alia to appoint IPR6 /chairperson to conduct meeting of COC for the purpose of appointing RP.
to I.A. No. 326/2023. On 22.09.2023, both the I.A.s were listed. The NCLT directed the parties to file written
1 Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
2 National Company Law Tribunal
3 Committee of Creditors
4 in C.P. (IB) No. 123/BB/2019
5 Resolution Professional
6 Interim Resolution Professional
W.P. No.1538/2024
7
statement within a period of 10 days and reserved both the
I.A.s for orders.
25.09.2023.On 05.10.2023 and 06.10.2023, petitioner filed
two applications to recall the order dated 22.09.2023 and the same were not considered. On 18.10.2023, petitioner filed its written statement. On 07.12.2023, the NCLT allowed I.A. No. 575/2022 filed by respondent No.1 and dismissed I.A. No. 326/2023 filed by petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has presented this writ petition.
impugned order, submitted that:
8
subject to filling of written statements. The NCLT ought not to have passed the order as it is in violation of principles of natural justice.
W.P. No.1538/2024
9
On 22.09.2023, the NCLT directed the parties to file written statement within a period of 10 days and reserved both the I.A.s for orders. Respondent No. 1 filed its written statement on 25.09.2023. Petitioner filed application to recall the order dated 22.09.2023 and the same was not considered. Thereafter, petitioner filed its written statement on 18.10.2023.
W.P. No.1538/2024
10
326/2023 on the same date. Respondent No.1 filed its statement of objections to I.A. No.326/2023 on 03.06.2023.
right to file objections to I.A. No. 575/2022 stood forfeited. Petitioner filed an application to recall on the said order. The matter was taken up on 21.06.2023. We have perused the order dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure O). The NCLT after considering petitioner’s grievance provided one more opportunity to petitioner to file its written statement subject to payment of cost. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
“1. Heard the Ld. Counsels for the Applicant and R-3.
2. Pursuant to order dated 06.06.2023, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has filed clarification on limitation vide Diary No.3236 dated 21.06.2023. The same is taken on record.
3. On 06.06.2023, the following was observed in respect of R-3.
“2. Pursuant to notice issued on 02.01.2023, the Ld. Counsel for the R-3 appeared on 13.02.2023 and sought two weeks’ time to file reply. However, the same was not filed on 16.03.2023. Again another two weeks’ time was granted and it was listed for 28.04.2023. On 28.04.2023, the Ld. Counsel for the R-3
W.P. No.1538/2024
11
submitted that the objection are ready and the same will be file today, further she has failed an I.A., therefore requested to list the same on the next date of hearing.
3. However, in spite of availing substantial time, no reply has been filed by R-3 till date. Hence, their right to reply is forfeited.”
4. Today, Ld. Counsel appearing for R-3 sought for recalling of the order dated 06.06.2023 and to permit him to file objections to this IA. He further submits that he has filed an IA seeking for recalling of the said order however if not yet listed
5. In view of the above, Ld. Counsel for the R-3 is directed to pay costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the Prime Ministers’ National Relief Fund and file proof of payment within one week in order to file objections since the right was already forfeited on 06.06.2023.
6. List the case on 19.07.2023 .”
12
order dated 22.09.2023. The same was not considered. Thereafter on 07.12.2023, the NCLT passed orders on both the I.A.s. Respondent No.1’s I.A. No. 575/2022 was allowed and petitioner’s I.A. No. 326/2023 was dismissed.
7 SLP (CIVIL) Nos.14117-14118 OF 2021
W.P. No.1538/2024
13
petitioner did not choose to file the written statement. After recalling applications, petitioner had filed the written statement on 18.10.2023.
14
does not merit any consideration and accordingly, it is
dismissed .
No costs.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
SPS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the NCLT order allowing I.A.No.575/2022 and dismissing I.A.No.326/2023 violated natural justice by not considering the petitioner's written statement filed late.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ishwarlal Mali Rathod Vs. Gopal and OrsReferred¶15
SLP (CIVIL) Nos.14117-14118 OF 2021
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Miller Traders Private Limited
Canara Bank
Dunlop Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
Subhlaxmi Compusis Pvt. Ltd.
Suryamani Financing Company Ltd.
Dahisar Traders Pvt. Ltd.
P.S. Dinesh Kumar
T.G. Shivashankare Gowda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court