Summary
The Supreme Court set aside an NCLAT order directing admission of an insolvency application because the corporate debtor had not received the required appeal notice or hearing. Supplying an advance paperbook did not replace service after issuance of notice. The appeal was remanded to NCLAT without deciding the insolvency merits.
Issues
- Whether advance delivery of the appeal paperbook satisfied the required service of NCLAT’s notice.
Provisions considered
- Rule 48(1), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016Service pursuant to issuance of notice was mandatory despite earlier delivery of an advance paperbook. (¶ 7–8)
- Rule 52, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016The Registry had to record service details; the record did not demonstrate compliance or even payment of process fees. (¶ 9–10)
Held
- An advance copy of the appeal did not constitute the notice required after NCLAT issued notice. The record supported the debtor’s complaint that no such notice was served, contrary to the order’s assertion that all parties were heard. (¶¶ 5–8, 10–11)
- Absence of service and hearing violated natural justice. Fresh consideration before NCLAT with an opportunity to both sides was required, without deciding the substantive insolvency question. (¶ 11–14)
Result
Appeal disposed of; NCLAT order set aside and matter remanded for expeditious fresh consideration after hearing the parties. Parties to seek early listing on 13 March 2019; no fresh notice to the appellant required. Merits reserved; pending applications disposed of; no costs.