New Delhi: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has directed NCLT to hear afresh the insolvency petition filed by APL Apollo Tubes against one of its goods buyers.
A two-member bench came down heavily on the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for rejecting APL Apollo Tubes' claims on "imaginary interpretation".
The NCLAT said the tribunal should "refrain from stepping into the shoes of the litigant by substituting its own findings in the absence of any evidence".
The Appellate Tribunal has directed NCLT to make all efforts to take a decision on the proceedings as soon as possible.
The NCLAT order came on a petition filed by APL Apollo Tubes against an order of the NCLT, which on September 9, 2019 rejected its bankruptcy petition filed against Tanisha Scaffolding as an operational lender.Tanisha Scaffolding was engaged in marketing of products manufactured by APL Apollo Tubes. Some amount in lieu of supplies was not paid and was yet to be paid, hence APL Apollo Tubes filed bankruptcy petition.
The NCLT rejected this by holding that the debt was not outstanding on the ground that there was no documentary evidence produced by the appellant to establish that the debt was outstanding and payable.
However, the Appellate Tribunal noted that this conclusion by the NCLT has been reached only on the basis of a hypothetical interpretation given to the contents of the challan, with no evidence or pleading to the contrary.
“In the absence of any plea to the contrary by the respondent, there was no occasion for the NCLT to draw any conclusion as to what impact the purchase order would have on the demand notices and pre-invoices which were issued.In respect of the amount to be paid by the Appellant, the Appellant,” it said.
Moreover, even in the NCLAT proceedings, Tanisha Scaffolding, despite being given several opportunities, has not filed any objection or even a written statement to rebut the same.
While setting aside the order, NCLAT said that tribunals created under a statute while adjudicating between parties have to confine their findings to the extent of the relevant pleadings and evidence placed by the parties.
"Tribunals or Courts are not expected to plead in support of any party before it in the absence of any plea raised before it to refute the plea raised by the other party in support of its party. Present the conclusion."We are of the view that if the impugned order dated September 5, 2019 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the NCLT, Bangalore Bench for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to the respondent, it will serve the justice NCLAT said, file its objection to the application under section 9 and take a fresh decision on it.
A two-member bench came down heavily on the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for rejecting APL Apollo Tubes' claims on "imaginary interpretation".
The NCLAT said the tribunal should "refrain from stepping into the shoes of the litigant by substituting its own findings in the absence of any evidence".
The Appellate Tribunal has directed NCLT to make all efforts to take a decision on the proceedings as soon as possible.
The NCLAT order came on a petition filed by APL Apollo Tubes against an order of the NCLT, which on September 9, 2019 rejected its bankruptcy petition filed against Tanisha Scaffolding as an operational lender.Tanisha Scaffolding was engaged in marketing of products manufactured by APL Apollo Tubes. Some amount in lieu of supplies was not paid and was yet to be paid, hence APL Apollo Tubes filed bankruptcy petition.
The NCLT rejected this by holding that the debt was not outstanding on the ground that there was no documentary evidence produced by the appellant to establish that the debt was outstanding and payable.
However, the Appellate Tribunal noted that this conclusion by the NCLT has been reached only on the basis of a hypothetical interpretation given to the contents of the challan, with no evidence or pleading to the contrary.
“In the absence of any plea to the contrary by the respondent, there was no occasion for the NCLT to draw any conclusion as to what impact the purchase order would have on the demand notices and pre-invoices which were issued.In respect of the amount to be paid by the Appellant, the Appellant,” it said.
Moreover, even in the NCLAT proceedings, Tanisha Scaffolding, despite being given several opportunities, has not filed any objection or even a written statement to rebut the same.
While setting aside the order, NCLAT said that tribunals created under a statute while adjudicating between parties have to confine their findings to the extent of the relevant pleadings and evidence placed by the parties.
"Tribunals or Courts are not expected to plead in support of any party before it in the absence of any plea raised before it to refute the plea raised by the other party in support of its party. Present the conclusion."We are of the view that if the impugned order dated September 5, 2019 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the NCLT, Bangalore Bench for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to the respondent, it will serve the justice NCLAT said, file its objection to the application under section 9 and take a fresh decision on it.
