Ex-Parte Order Is Invalid Where Company Petition Is Renumbered After Restoration Without Informing Corporate Debtor: NCLAT
Mohd Malik Chauhan
11 Aug 2025 5:20 PM IST
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when a Company Petition is restored and assigned a different number, due to which the Corporate Debtor could not access the case and present its defence effectively, an ex-parte order cannot be passed in such circumstances. The...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when a Company Petition is restored and assigned a different number, due to which the Corporate Debtor could not access the case and present its defence effectively, an ex-parte order cannot be passed in such circumstances. The Corporate Debtor should have been informed of the renumbering so it could present its defence.
This appeal has been filed against order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Division Bench, Court-I, Ahmedabad admitting Section 7 application filed by the Respondent No.1.
The Adjudicating Authority passed an ex-parte order admitting an application under section 7 of the IBC. Earlier, a Company Petition was disposed of due to commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) which was challenged before the NCLAT therefore a liberty was given to reagitate the Application if the CIRP order is set aside. Following restoration of the Application, it was renumbered and the application was admitted ex-parte.
It is the case of the Appellant that it was not given a fair opportunity to contest the application and the said application could not be accessed by the counsel due to its renumbering.
The Tribunal agreed with the submissions of the Appellant and held that the Company Petition number was changed after its restoration without notifying the corporate debtor, preventing its counsel from accessing the case details and appearing on hearings when the case was listed. It held that as the impugned order was passed ex parte, the Appellant was entitled to be heard.
However, since in the present case, the Financial Creditor has accepted the amount deposited by the corporate debtor and decided not to pursue the application under section 7, the Registry was directed to release the deposited amount and close the application. Accordingly, the present appeal was disposed of.
Case Title: Abhishek Singh, Suspended Director of Manpasand Beverages Ltd. Versus Yoginkumar Ashokbhai Patel & Anr.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1863 of 2024
Judgment Date: 08/08/2025