Madras High Court
Ranjith Babu vs Ganesan Geetha on 8 August, 2023
CRP Nos.3279 and 3280 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA , CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
CRP Nos.3279 and 3280 of 2022
Ranjith Babu : Petitioner in CRP No.3279 of 2022
M/s.Alturas Trading Corp.
rep. By its Partner, Anitha : Petitioner in CRP No.3280 of 2022
versus
1.Ganesan Geetha
2.M/s.VRMX Concrete India Pvt.Ltd.
Old No.110, New No.111A,
2nd Floor, Mount View Building,
Mount Road, Guindy,
Chennai 600 032
3.M/s.Salem Mines and Aggregates,
rep. By its Partner Mr.P.Subramani : Respondents
Prayer: Civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
against the order dated 21.07.2022 passed by National Company Law Tribunal 1,
Chennai Bench in IA/IBC/431/CHE/2021 in IBA/606/2020 and IA/IBC/432/
CHE/2021 in IBA/606/2020.
For the Petitioners : Ms.M.Revathi
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Mohan Prasad,
M/s.Viruksham Legal,
for the second respondent
No appearance for respondent No.1
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP Nos.3279 and 3280 of 2022
Not ready in notice for respondent No.2
COMMON ORDER
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petitioners,
being operational creditors, filed IA Nos.431 and 432 of 2022, objecting to an
application filed by IRP under Section 1A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016.
2. The learned counsel submits that the reliance placed by the National
Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Tribunal') on the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Kamal Singh vs. Dinesh Gupta dated
25.08.2021, is erroneous. All other factors are required to be considered.
According to the learned counsel, though an application has been made by the
respondents under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, the present application was still
maintainable. According to the learned counsel, the advocate engaged by the
petitioners had not appeared in the matter; rather her associate appeared and she
only sought adjournment. However, the Tribunal has erroneously recorded that
the advocate had argued at length and wasted the judicial time of the Tribunal and
imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) payable to
the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. According to the learned counsel, her
Page 2 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP Nos.3279 and 3280 of 2022
associate made only few submissions.
3. The application filed by the petitioners before the NCLT is pending, as
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners may agitate
all these aspects in the said proceedings.
4. As far as the observation of the learned Tribunal is concerned, the
petitioners ought to have filed an application, bringing to its notice about the fact
that no major arguments were advanced and as such, had not wasted the judicial
time of the Tribunal. The petitioners, even now, are at liberty to do so. As far as
imposition of cost is concerned, as the same is made payable to the Prime
Minister National Relief Fund, and the same has already been paid, we are not
interfering with that.
5. The Civil Revision Petitions as such, stand disposed of. There will be no
order as to costs. Consequently, CMP Nos.17411, 17409, 17415 of 2022 are
closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
08.08.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
tar
Page 3 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP Nos.3279 and 3280 of 2022
To
The National Company Law Tribunal 1, Chennai Bench
Page 4 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP Nos.3279 and 3280 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(tar)
CRP Nos.3279 and 3280 of 2022
08.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
