Kerala High Court
Samson T George vs Sunil Kumar Krishnakumar on 7 July, 2025
O.P.(C) No. 412 of 2025
1
2025:KER:49744
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947
OP(C) NO. 412 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2024 IN IA NO.498/2023
IN CP NO.11 OF 2020 OF NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOCHI
BENCH, KAKKANAD
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS.3 & 4:
1 SAMSON T GEORGE
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O T.A. GEORGE,
THANNINILKUNNATHIL HOUSE, PARIYARAM,
ELANTHOOR P.O, ELANTHOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY
TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 643,
NOW RESIDING AT P.O BOX NO. 9330, AHMADI, KUWAIT,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
ALEX JOSEPH, AGED 62, S/O LATE JOSEPH,
RESIDING AT NO.7, JOR BAGH, JOR BAGH VILLAGE,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 003.
2 BABU MATHEW
AGED 66 YEARS, S/O LATE T.G. MATHEW,
THEODICAL HOUSE, THEODICAL P.O, AYROOR VILLAGE,
RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689 613, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER, ALEX JOSEPH, AGED 62,
S/O LATE JOSEPH, RESIDING AT NO.7, JOR BAGH,
JOR BAGH VILLAGE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 003.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.S.MANU
SHRI.S.K.PREMRAJ
SMT.V.SARITHA
SRI.DILU JOSEPH
SRI.C.A.ANUPAMAN
SHRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD
SMT.NEETHU.K.SHAJI
O.P.(C) No. 412 of 2025
2
2025:KER:49744
SRI.C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR
SMT.MANJU E.R.
SHRI.ALINT JOSEPH
SHRI.PAUL JOSE
SMT.DAINY DAVIS
SMT.RILNA RADHAKRISHNAN
SHRI.MAHESH KUMAR K.
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT NOS.1&2 AND RESPONDENT NOS.1&2:
1 SUNIL KUMAR KRISHNAKUMAR
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O LATE M. KRISHNAKUMAR,
FLAT NO. 1014, MIR GREEN METROPOLIS,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 030,
EMAIL: [email protected].
2 ANUPAMA SUNIL KUMAR
AGED 47 YEARS, W/O SUNIL KUMAR KRISHNAKUMAR,
FLAT NO.1014, MIR GREEN METROPOLIS, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 030,
EMAIL: [email protected],
3 THE LIQUIDATOR
MIR REALTORS PVT. LTD, ANNIE ABRAHAM, ANN VILLA,
FATHIMA CHURCH LANE, ELAMKULAM, KADAVANTHRA P.O,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 020,
EMAIL: [email protected],
MOBILE NO: 9447540102,
4 MIR REALTORS PVT. LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SUSPENDED MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K. ARUNKUMAR, HOUSE NO. 2698, CHOORAPARAMBU ROAD,
NEAR METRO PILLAR NO. 558A, KALOOR P.O, KOCHI,
PIN - 682017. E-MAIL: [email protected],
[email protected] , [email protected],
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.J.KARTHIKA
SHRI.NIDHI SAM JOHNS
SRI.LIJO JOSEPH (THOPPIL)
O.P.(C) No. 412 of 2025
3
2025:KER:49744
SRI.A.KEVIN THOMAS
SMT.CELIA SANTHOSH
SHRI.JERIN GEORGE
SRI.M.A.SHAJI
SHRI.LLOYD ARBY
SHRI.TEJUS K.P.
SRI.FARAEZ KHAN
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C) No. 412 of 2025
4
2025:KER:49744
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 7th day of July, 2025) This petition is filed by the petitioners by challenging the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench, on 06.09.2024, having rejecting the prayer of the petitioner's for filing a reply.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners through Video Conference, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 and the learned counsel for the Liquidator, respondents 3 & 4.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners/Respondents 3 & 4 sought time for filing the reply in the liquidation proceedings in IA (IBC)/498/KOB/ 2023 in CP (IBA)/11/KOB/2020 on the file of NCLT, Kochi Bench, which came to be rejected by impugned order dated 06.08.2024, holding that there is already pre-emptory order for granting three weeks time finally to file reply after furnishing copy on the other side and if the reply was not O.P.(C) No. 412 of 2025 5 2025:KER:49744 filed, the right of filing reply is forfeited. Accordingly, on 06.09.2024, the tribunal stated, the pleadings were completed. Hence, the petitioner is approached before this Court.
4. The Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the tribunal committed error in rejecting the prayer and not considering the reply, yet to file by the petitioners mainly on the ground of there is no time limit prescribed under Rule 41 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. Such being the case, the question of granting cut off time cannot be permissible and forfeiting the right of petitioners for filing the reply, cannot be rejected. Even, there were 26 similar applications were pending before the NCLT, that was not considered. Such being the case, an opportunity to be given to the petitioners, as a principle of natural justice for filing the reply, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order.
O.P.(C) No. 412 of 20256
2025:KER:49744
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents seriously objected to the petition mainly on the ground of the petitioners not challenged the order dated 06.08.24, it is only challenged the order dated 06.09.24, where it is only stated, pleadings were completed. Whereas, the pre-emptory order was passed on 06.08.24, stating that if the reply was not filed within 3 weeks, the right of filing reply stand fortified, that was not challenged by the petitioners. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners has permitted to amend the prayer for inserting the date 06.08.2024 instead of 06.09.2024.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to carry out the amendment, at this stage. However, mentioning the date as 06.08.2024 instead of 06.09.24 is only technical issue and cannot go into merit of the case.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, on hearing the counsel for the parties and perused O.P.(C) No. 412 of 2025 7 2025:KER:49744 the Rule 41 of the NCLT Rules, wherein the Rules does not provide any time limit for filing the counter within a fixed time for filing the counter, even Rule 42, the petitioners can file rejoinder. Thereafter, the Bench can call for further information and post the matter for evidence. As per Rule 43, even after filing the rejoinder, the tribunal has power to call further information from the parties to the lis. Such being the case, even otherwise, as per Rule 51, it says that the tribunal may regulate its own procedure in accordance with Rules of natural justice and equity for the purpose of discharging its function under the Act. Of course, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the liquidation proceedings shall be completed within one year. But on perusal of the very record of the tribunal, though the liquidation proceedings initiated in June 2023, but the matter is went on, adjourning the matters even till August 2024 for filing reply. Such being the case, when there is no cut off date prescribed in the NCLT Rules, though the O.P.(C) No. 412 of 2025 8 2025:KER:49744 tribunal can follow its own procedure, but that does not mean to restrict the right of the parties for filing the reply. Though, there is a pre-emptory order passed by the tribunal but on 06.09.2024 only one week was lapsed than three weeks granted by Tribunal. Such being the case, the tribunal ought to have given opportunity to file counter by recalling the order dated 06.08.2024.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of providing an opportunity and following the principles of natural justice, the tribunal ought to have allowed the petitioners for filing reply and even a pre-emptory order has been passed that will not take away the power of the tribunal for granting such time, in view of the Rule 41 of the NCLT Rules.
9. Therefore, I am of the view that, the order of the tribunal called for interference and the petitioner is entitled for filing reply, if it is ready.
10. Accordingly, the Original petition is allowed. O.P.(C) No. 412 of 2025 9
2025:KER:49744 i. The impugned order dated 06.08.2024/ 06.09.2024 is hereby set aside.
ii. The tribunal is directed to permit the petitioners to file the reply on or before 10.07.2025, with cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to respondents herein.
Sd/-
K. NATARAJAN JUDGE S.M.K. O.P.(C) No. 412 of 2025 10 2025:KER:49744 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 412/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE IA(IBC)/498/2023 IN CP(IBA)/11/KOB/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE NCLT, BENCH FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 Exhibit P-2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06- 09-2024 IN IA(IBC)/498/KOB/2023 IN CP(IBA)/11/KOB/2020, FORFEITING THE RIGHT OF THE PETITIONERS TO FILE THEIR REPLY STATEMENT Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE PETITIONERS IN IA(IBC)/498/KOB/2023 IN CP(IBA)/11/KOB/2020 EXCLUDING THE DOCUMENTS TO BE FILED ALONG WITH IT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R 1 (1) True copy of daily order dated 3rd June 2024 of the Honble NCLT Kochi Bench in IA IBC 498 KOB 2023 in IBA 11 KOB 2020 Exhibit R 1 (2) True copy of daily order dated 6th August 2024 of the Honble NCLT Kochi Bench in IA IBC 498 KOB 2023 in IBA 11 KOB 2020