The NCLAT Chennai member recused himself from the case after receiving a personal request from his brother.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, led by Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) and Technical Member Mr. Jatindranath Swain, addressed an application in an appeal. Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma recused himself from the case after receiving a personal request from the appellant’s brother. Emphasizing judicial impartiality, the NCLAT directed that the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chairperson for the nomination of a new bench and granted permission for the appellant’s senior counsel to withdraw from the case.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dealt with an appeal concerning the liquidation process of a corporate debtor. The appeal sought to overturn the impugned order dated August 26, 2022, passed by the NCLT, Special Bench-II, Chennai. The appellant contended that all dues to financial creditors had been cleared and requested the quashing of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The appellant further sought directions to return the corporate debtor as a going concern, subject to undertakings to honour operational creditors and government dues. The submissions highlighted financial and operational creditors' claims, including those from Indian Bank, HDFC, and operational creditors like government departments and private entities.
The matter took a unique turn as one of the adjudicating members was approached through personal communication by their real brother. The message, containing a personal appeal and apologies, requested favourable consideration for the appellant. The member expressed deep regret for being placed in such a position and recused themselves from hearing the matter. The case was directed to the Hon'ble Chairperson for the nomination of another bench to ensure impartiality.
Additionally, upon learning of the situation, the appellant’s senior counsel requested to withdraw from the case, and the tribunal granted the permission sought. This decision underscores the tribunal's adherence to judicial ethics and the principles of fairness in proceedings, emphasizing the importance of maintaining impartiality even in complex insolvency matters.
Mr. P.H. Arvindh Pandian, Senior Advocate for Mr. G. Sudhakar, Advocate represented the Appellant.
Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate, appeared for Respondent No. 1 & Respondent No. 2.
Mrs. Gayathri Harish, Advocate appeared for Impleadment.
Subscribers can access the Case, including Case Analysis, Ratio Decidendi, Headnotes, Briefs, Case Research, Cited Case Laws, Case Law Cross-references, and the latest updates on Statutes, Notifications, Circulars, Guidelines, Press Releases and more.
Click on the Citation/Link to access these resources
Commentaires