2018 (3) TMI 1604 - AT - Companies Law

Corporate insolvency process - Held that - Mr. Pranshu Paul, advocate accepts notice on behalf of 2nd respondent i.e. Corporate Debtor through Insolvency Resolution Professional. No further notice need be issued on it. 2nd respondent will assist the Court and, if so desire, may file a reply-affidavit within a week. Mr. R. Sudhinder, advocate submits that he will file an application for impleadment on behalf of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). He is allowed to do so within a week along with his Vakalatnama. If such an application is filed, then CoC should be treated as 3rd respondent. We are not issuing separate Notice on the 1st respondent who is a member of Committee of Creditors as we are allowing Mr. R. Sudhinder, advocate to appear on behalf of CoC. He may obtain instructions from 1st Respondent and may file reply. Post the case for admission on 23rd March, 2018.

Summary

Issues:
1. Notice to be issued to the Corporate Debtor and the Committee of Creditors.
2. Application for impleadment by the Committee of Creditors.
3. Conduct of meetings of the Committee of Creditors.

Analysis:
The judgment issued by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, involved several key issues. Firstly, the court directed the issuance of a notice to the Corporate Debtor and the Committee of Creditors. The 2nd respondent, representing the Corporate Debtor through the Insolvency Resolution Professional, accepted the notice, obviating the need for further issuance. The 2nd respondent was given the opportunity to file a reply-affidavit within a week. Additionally, an application for impleadment by the Committee of Creditors was discussed. Mr. R. Sudhinder, advocate, expressed intent to file the application on behalf of the Committee of Creditors, which was allowed within a week along with the submission of Vakalatnama. If the application was filed, the Committee of Creditors would be treated as the 3rd respondent. No separate notice was issued to the 1st respondent, a member of the Committee of Creditors, as Mr. R. Sudhinder was permitted to represent the Committee and interact with the 1st respondent for obtaining instructions and filing a reply.

Furthermore, the judgment addressed the conduct of meetings of the Committee of Creditors. The case was scheduled for admission on 23rd March 2018. During this interim period, if any meeting of the Committee of Creditors was convened, the Resolution Professional was instructed to conduct it in accordance with Section 24 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The suspended Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor was to be informed to attend such meetings, with prior notice given as per the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the regulations framed thereunder. This directive aimed to ensure transparency and compliance with the statutory requirements governing insolvency proceedings.