NCLAT : In The Statesman Ltd. vs. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Ors.

In spite of public notice, if the Appellant did not attend the meetings or raise the objections, subsequently, he could not be heard. The very object of giving public notice is to give opportunity to come forward and participate or raise objections.

Once having moved the High Court in the first Motion on the basis of lists of creditors as on 29.02.2016 so as to call for meeting of the secured and unsecured creditors, and once the Hon’ble High Court having accepted it and passed orders to call the meeting, subsequently, how adding or deducting the names of creditors would be permissible is not shown by Appellant. Appellant has not shown that the company is bound to go on updating the list of creditors till the date of filing of the First Motion Application or after orders, till the meetings of creditors takes place.

There is substance in the argument for the learned counsel for Respondents that in spite of public notice if the Appellant did not attend the meetings or raise the objections, subsequently, he could not be heard. We reject the arguments of the counsel of the Appellant that the Appellant was not expected to go on watching the newspapers. The very object of giving public notice is to give opportunity to come forward and participate or raise objections. The NCLT was right when it observed that the Appellant could have filed objections in pursuance to the notice published in the press at the time of First Motion when objections to the Scheme were invited.

Link : https://nclat.nic.in/Useradmin/upload/16882023035b8920f01d18e.pdf