The case involves an appeal against an Impugned Order dated 2024-05-31 passed in IA(IBC)(Liquidation) No.5/2024 in CP(IB) No.103/7/HDB/2020. The Appellant, a Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), challenges the order, arguing that the Learned Adjudicating Authority failed to consider his Counter Affidavit filed on 2024-04-01 and did not acknowledge his presence or pleadings during the proceedings. The Appellant contends that this failure deprived him of a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Consortium of M/s. Varma Steels Pvt. Ltd. & AVP Varma, SRA, Mata Energy Ltd. filed an appeal against an order passed in IA(IBC)(Liquidation) No.5/2024 in CP(IB) No.103/7/HDB/2020. The appellant is a Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA). The Impugned Order was issued on 2024-05-31. The appellant's counsel argues that a counter affidavit was filed on 2024-04-01 and that the appellant participated in the proceedings. However, the order did not acknowledge the appellant's presence or consider the pleadings. The Counsel for the Financial Creditor and the Resolution Professional argued against the appellant's claims. The key fact is that the NCLT order did not reflect the appellant's participation and pleadings, which the appellate tribunal found to be a critical error.
Sign in to view the parties.
The Appellant filed a Counter Affidavit before…
The matter was taken up…
The case involves an appeal against an Impugned Order dated 2024-05-31 passed in IA(IBC)(Liquidation) No.5/2024 in CP(IB) No.103/7/HDB/2020. The Appellant, a Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), challenges the order, arguing that the Learned Adjudicating Authority failed to consider his Counter Affidavit filed on 2024-04-01 and did not acknowledge his presence or pleadings during the proceedings. The Appellant contends that this failure deprived him of a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Consortium of M/s. Varma Steels Pvt. Ltd. & AVP Varma, SRA, Mata Energy Ltd. filed an appeal against an order passed in IA(IBC)(Liquidation) No.5/2024 in CP(IB) No.103/7/HDB/2020. The appellant is a Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA). The Impugned Order was issued on 2024-05-31. The appellant's counsel argues that a counter affidavit was filed on 2024-04-01 and that the appellant participated in the proceedings. However, the order did not acknowledge the appellant's presence or consider the pleadings. The Counsel for the Financial Creditor and the Resolution Professional argued against the appellant's claims. The key fact is that the NCLT order did not reflect the appellant's participation and pleadings, which the appellate tribunal found to be a critical error.
The Appellant filed a Counter Affidavit before…
The matter was taken up…