ABC Pvt. Ltd. is a corporate debtor against whom the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as per Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) was in progress pursuant to an order of National Company Law Appe

The facts given in the case are identical as were in the case of Jai Balaji Industries v/s SBI in Civil appeal No. 1929 of 2019 where the corporate debtor being aggrieved w.r.t. the order of National company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) for admission of application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The plea of the corporate debtor was that it had been denied the right to be heard since no notice of the appeal was served upon him. However, the contention of the respondent State Bank of India was that an advance copy of the appeal paper book filed with the NCLAT was served on the registered office of the corporate debtor and thus the appellant has been employing the delaying tactics to install the insolvency proceedings. The Apex Court admitted the application of the corporate debtor as being maintainable. The Apex Court after admitting the application of the corporate debtor vide judgment dated 8 th March, 2019 has held that the corporate debtor appellant has been denied the right to be heard which is the principle for natural justice and the stand taken by the corporate debtor that no notice of the appeal by NCLAT was served upon him is correct. The Apex Court further held that Rule 48 of NCLAT Rules, 2016 clearly state that service of notice on the other side, pursuant to the issuance of notice by the NCLAT in the appeal, regardless of the supply of an advance copy of appeal paper book before the issuance of notice by NCLAT is necessary. Further Rule 52 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 categorically states that the judicial section of the registry of the NCLAT shall record, in the "Notes of the Registry" column in the order sheet, the details regarding completion of service of notice on the respondents. Thus, appellants appeal was allowed as no processing fee for issuance and service of notice was paid by the respondent and the matter was remanded back to NCLAT to be decided on merits. Considering the above in the given case, the grounds by the appellant being the corporate debtor for filing an appeal before the Supreme Court will be maintainable.