National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal in Insolvency Proceedings Due to Procedural Non-Compliance. Appellant's Claims of Natural Justice Violation Found Unsubstantiated.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by Sarita Patni, the Personal Guarantor of Ankit Metal & Power Ltd., against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata, regarding the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Appellant argued that the Resolution Professional filed an application beyond the statutory period without seeking condonation of delay and that she was not made a party to the application, which prevented her from defending herself. The Appellant also claimed that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider her reply and that there was a clerical error in a communication regarding her status as a guarantor for UIC Udyog Limited. The Respondents denied these allegations, asserting that the Appellant was given multiple opportunities to respond and that the proceedings were conducted fairly. The Tribunal found that the Appellant had not disputed the existence of debt or default and that the Adjudicating Authority had acted within its jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Adjudicating Authority's decision and noting that the Appellant's procedural objections were without merit.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Personal Guarantee - Compliance with Statutory Timelines - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 99(1) - The Appellant contended that the Resolution Professional filed an application beyond the statutory period without seeking condonation of delay, which was a contravention of the Code. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority had provided multiple opportunities to the Appellant to file a reply, and thus the appeal was dismissed (Paras 32-49).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Appellant was denied natural justice and whether the Adjudicating Authority properly considered the Appellant's reply.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Adjudicating Authority's order and finding no merit in the Appellant's claims of procedural irregularity and denial of natural justice.

Law Points

  • Insolvency proceedings
  • personal guarantee
  • natural justice
  • procedural irregularity
  • statutory timelines
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (07) 40

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1773 of 2024

2026-07-16

Naresh Salecha, Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan

Mr. Siddhant Jaiswal, Mr. Abhishek Verma, Mr. Soorjya Ganguly, Ms. Niharika Sharma, Ms. Kiran Sharma, Ms. Pooja, Mr. Sidhartha Sharma, Mr. Arjun Asthana, Ms. Aakanksha Sahni

Sarita Patni

Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Limited, Aditya Kumar Tibrewal

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal regarding the initiation of CIRP.

Remedy Sought

The Appellant sought to set aside the impugned order and allow her appeal.

Filing Reason

The Appellant contended procedural irregularities and denial of natural justice.

Previous Decisions

The Adjudicating Authority had previously allowed the application for CIRP against the Appellant.

Issues

Whether the Appellant was denied natural justice. Whether the Adjudicating Authority properly considered the Appellant's reply.

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that she was not made a party to the application and was denied the opportunity to defend herself. The Respondents contended that the Appellant was given multiple opportunities to file a reply and that the proceedings were fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority had provided multiple opportunities for the Appellant to respond and that the procedural objections raised were without merit.

Judgment Excerpts

The Appellant contended that the impugned order incorrectly records that no reply had been filed by the Appellant. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority had provided multiple opportunities to the Appellant to file a reply.

Procedural History

The Appellant filed an appeal against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, which had admitted the application for CIRP against her. The proceedings included multiple hearings where the Appellant was represented by counsel.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 61, Section 99, Section 95
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Judicature at Bombay Dismisses Defendants' Application for Stay in Trade Mark Infringement Suit Due to Lack of Prima Facie Evidence. Defendants' Claims of Invalidity of Plaintiffs' Trade Marks Found Insufficient Under Section 124 of the...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds State Authorities in Land Acquisition Dispute Involving Validity of Presidential Notification Under Article 258(1) of the Constitution. The Court Held That a Presidential Notification Entrusting Functions to State Officers Has F...