Case Note & Summary
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai was hearing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant, Mr. KN Devdass, the suspended director of Cema Electric Lighting Products India Pvt Ltd., challenged an order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, in CP/IB/173(CHE)/2023. The respondent, M/s. Overdrive Electronics (P) Ltd., through their counsel, made a statement at the bar that they did not intend to file a counter affidavit to controvert the appellant's pleadings. The NCLAT, relying on the settled principle from Naresh Kumar Bansal v. G.S. Kalra & Ors. (1993 Volume 25 DRJ 230) and a similar view from the Allahabad High Court in 2002 Volume 4 AWC 3093, held that in the absence of a counter affidavit, the averments made by the appellant remain unrebutted and must be accepted as correct. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The court did not delve into the merits of the case but decided purely on the procedural ground of unrebutted pleadings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Unrebutted Averments - Admission by Non-filing of Counter - When a respondent in judicial proceedings states at bar that they do not intend to file a counter affidavit, the pleadings of the appellant are treated as admitted and accepted as correct - Held that the principle from Naresh Kumar Bansal v. G.S. Kalra & Ors., 1993 (25) DRJ 230 applies, and the same view was taken by Allahabad High Court in 2002 (4) AWC 3093 (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's pleadings should be treated as admitted when the respondent states at bar that they do not intend to file a counter affidavit.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.07.2024 in CP/IB/173(CHE)/2023 is set aside.
Law Points
- Unrebutted averments in absence of counter affidavit are deemed admitted
- Principle from Naresh Kumar Bansal v. G.S. Kalra & Ors.
- 1993 (25) DRJ 230
- Similar view in 2002 (4) AWC 3093
Case Details
2024 LawText (NCLAT) (01) 83
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.299/2024
Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma
Mr. P.J. Sriganesh for Appellant, Mr. Anuj Solanki for Respondent No.1
M/s. Overdrive Electronics (P) Ltd. and Mr. Sushil Kumar Singhal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the impugned order dated 09.07.2024 in CP/IB/173(CHE)/2023.
Filing Reason
The appellant challenged the order of the Adjudicating Authority.
Previous Decisions
The National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench passed the impugned order on 09.07.2024 in CP/IB/173(CHE)/2023.
Issues
Whether the appellant's pleadings should be treated as admitted when the respondent states at bar that they do not intend to file a counter affidavit.
Submissions/Arguments
The respondent's counsel stated at bar that they do not intend to file a counter affidavit to controvert the appellant's pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi
When a respondent in judicial proceedings states at bar that they do not intend to file a counter affidavit, the pleadings of the appellant are treated as admitted and accepted as correct, as per the principle in Naresh Kumar Bansal v. G.S. Kalra & Ors.
Judgment Excerpts
It is settled principle that, when the Respondent in a judicial proceedings makes a statement at bar that he does not intend to file the Counter Affidavit to controvert pleading of the appellant, in that eventuality, the pleadings raised by the adversary i.e., the appellant herein would be treated to be admitted
in the absence of the counter affidavit, the averments made by the petitioner has to be accepted as correct, as the averments remain unrebutted
Procedural History
The appeal arises out of an impugned order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench in CP/IB/173(CHE)/2023. The appellant filed the present appeal before NCLAT Chennai. During the hearing, the respondent's counsel stated that they did not intend to file a counter affidavit.
Acts & Sections
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
