JUDGEMENT :

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

These appeals have been preferred by the Appellant! Corporate Debtor - M/s. Innoventive Industries Limited against order(s) dated 17th January, 2017 and 23rd January, 2017 passed by the 'adjudicating authority' (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'Adjudicating Authority') under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as I&B Code 2016) in C.P. No. 1/I&BP/NCLT/MB/MAH/20 16.

2. By the impugned order dated 17th January 2017, the 'adjudicating authority' rejected all the contentions raised by the Appellant/ Corporate Debtor and held that the application preferred by the financial creditor - M/s. ICICI Bank - (respondent herein) is complete under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and admitted the application declaring 'moratorium' in regard to the affairs of the company; appointed 'Interim Resolution Professional' and passed interim order (s) in terms of Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

3. In the other impugned order dated 23rd January, 2017 the 'adjudicating authority' while admitted that there was a rush of work, in deciding the IA No. 6/2017 which inadvertently based on the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor, observed that delay in passing the order owing to the application filed by the Corporate Debtor in raising plea of no default, having raised in earlier C.A, the matter stands adjudicated.

4. The impugned judgment has been challenged by Appellant on the following grounds.

First contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the impugned order has been passed by the Tribunal without notice to the Appellant against the principle of rules of natural justice, as stipulated under Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013.

5. Mr Amarendra Saran, Ld. Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Serious civil consequences ensue due to public announcement of the initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process and appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional to manage the affairs of the corporate debtor removing the Board of Directors. In such a case, notice prior to admission of a petition under Section 7 of I&B Code, 2016 is required to be given. If notice is given prior to admission of a petition, it will be open to the corporate debtor to bring to the notice of the Tribunal that there is no default or that the application filed by the 'financial creditor' is incomplete and deserves to be dismissed.

Reliance was placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in S.L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan 1980 (4) SCC 379 and Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow vs CIT 2008 (14) SCC 151.

6. It was also contended that the Tribunal being a creation of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2013) is bound by Section 420 of the Act 2013 which stipulates 'reasonable opportunity of being heard' to be given to the 'parties' before passing an order. Further, Section 424 of the Act 2013, which grants liberty to the Tribunal to regulate its own procedure mandate to follow the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the aforesaid sections cast duty upon the Tribunal to issue notice to and hear a party before passing any order affecting the rights of the party.

7. The next contention was that (Maharashtra Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions Act (Bombay Act XCVI of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as MRU Act, 1958), being a piece of legislation intended to give relief to industrial undertakings will prevail over I&B Code, 2016.

8. Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that MRU Act, 1958 being a legislation referable to Entry 24 of List II of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India operates in different fields overriding the provisions of I&B Code, 2016.

9. It was also submitted that MRU Act being a beneficial piece of legislation and the State legislature having competent to enact it and the field being exclusively reserved for State legislature, will prevail ove