Gaurav kumar Advt: 21. It cannot be gainsaid that if an order/judgment of a ‘Tribunal’ is not pronounced at all, the same is a nullity in the ‘eye of law’, considering the fact that the ‘pronouncement’ is primarily a judicial act, which is the ‘Sanctum Sanctorum of any judicial proceedings’ in our ‘justice delivery system’, as opined by this ‘Tribunal’. 22. It is to be relevantly mentioned that ‘Pronouncement of Order’ is quite distinct from communicating/informing/intimating a

[9/7, 15:23] Gaurav kumar Advt: 21. It cannot be gainsaid that if an order/judgment of a ‘Tribunal’ is not pronounced at all, the same is a nullity in the ‘eye of law’, considering the fact that the ‘pronouncement’ is primarily a judicial act, which is the ‘Sanctum Sanctorum of any judicial proceedings’ in our ‘justice delivery system’, as opined by this ‘Tribunal’.

22. It is to be relevantly mentioned that ‘Pronouncement of Order’ is quite distinct from communicating/informing/intimating a deliverance of an order. At any cost, ‘Tribunal’ cannot dispense with justice. In reality, it must discharge its duties/function with a sole aim and purpose of ‘Dispensing Justice’.

23. If an order/judgment is delivered by a ‘Tribunal’ ignoramus of rules, then, it will result in untold hardship, misery and unerringly leading to a miscarriage of justice. Moreover, ‘expediency in pronouncement’ of an ‘Order’/‘Judgment’ by a ‘Tribunal’ is not desirable/palatable, in the earnest opinion of this ‘Tribunal’.

24. No wonder, a Judgment/Order of a Court of Law/‘Tribunal’/‘Appellate Tribunal’ is to be written only after deep travail and positive vein. The term ‘communication’ means making known or sharing or imparting. In legal parlance, it means to officially or solemnly, to declare or affirm as affirm the pronouncement of an ‘Order’/‘Judgment’. It is to be remembered that pronouncement of an ‘Order’/‘Judgment’ of a Court of Law/a Tribunal is not an empty ritualistic formality. Undoubtedly, the ‘Tribunal’/‘Appellate Tribunal’ is performing/discharging a solemn judicial function. The ‘Adjudicating Authority’ as per Section 5(1) of the I & B Code is the National Company Law Tribunal.
[9/7, 15:32] Sekarreporter: Comp App (AT)(CH)(INS) No.133 of 2021
1 | P a g e
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No.133 of 2021
(Under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016)
Arising out of the Impugned Order dated 07.12.2020 in
C.P.(IB) No. 116/BB/2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority,
(National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench)
In the matter of:
M/s. Ergomaxx (India) Private Limited
Address: No. 70/1, B-2, Azhinjivakam Jannappan,
ChaitramKoot Road, Karanodai, Sholavaram,
Chennai – 600067,
Tamil Nadu, India. …Appellant
V
1. The Registrar,
National Company Law Tribunal,
Bengaluru Bench,
Address: Raheja Towers,
12th Floor, M G Road,
Bengaluru – 560001,
Karnataka, India …Respondent No.1
2. National Company Law Tribunal,
Bengaluru Bench,
Address: Raheja Towers,
12th Floor, M G Road,
Bengaluru – 560001,
Karnataka, India. …Respondent No.2
Bangalore – 562106,
Karnataka, India. …Respondent No.3
Present:
For Appellant : Mr. K. Gaurav Kumar, (PCS)
For 3rd Respondent : No appearance
3. Krueger International Furniture Systems Private Limited
Address: Plot No: 55,
Bommasandra Jigani Link Road,
Jigani Industrial Area, Anekal Tq,