2019 (11) TMI 1695 - HC - Indian Laws

Deletion of properties enlisted in this Application - it has been urged that the earlier application was in relation to only one person Mr. Amit Surest Bhatnagar. So as not to create any kind of confusion in future, this application for modification has been moved seeking to incorporate his brother Mr. Sumit Surest Bhatnagar also - HELD THAT - The confusion with regard to the attendance of both brothers in the Committee of Creditors' meeting / proceedings as may be scheduled by RP, in wake of this additional condition F1 should not continue. It is being clarified by learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Kodekar on instructions received from the Investigating Officer of the CBI present before this Court that there is no objection with regard to both these brothers attending the Committee of Creditors' meeting / proceedings as may be scheduled by the RP in relation to the proceedings which have been undertaken before the NCLT in the Insolvency Application - It is being clarified that in wake of condition F1 and also since the Investigating Officer, CBI is to be intimated of the proceedings at every stage as undertaken by the RP, the participation of both the brothers Mr. Amit Bhatnagar and Mr. Sumit Bhatnagar as may be required under the law shall continue at the end of the RP. The application is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Modification of the Court's Order dated June 18, 2019.
2. Clarification regarding the properties owned by DPIL.
3. Attendance of both brothers in Committee of Creditors' meetings.

Issue-Wise Analysis:

1. Modification of the Court's Order dated June 18, 2019:
The application sought to modify the order dated June 18, 2019, which restricted the sale of properties owned by DPIL and the Bhatnagar brothers. The applicant, the Resolution Professional (RP) appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), argued that the properties mentioned in the bail order included those owned by DPIL and under the RP's custody. The RP sought to delete these properties from the list to proceed with the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Court acknowledged the RP's need to conduct CIRP and modified the order by deleting the specified properties from the list, allowing the RP to continue the process without hindrance.

2. Clarification regarding the properties owned by DPIL:
The RP argued that the properties listed in the bail order were owned by DPIL and not by the erstwhile directors. The Court noted that the properties had been provisionally attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) but were later set aside by the Appellate Tribunal. The Court decided not to delve into the attachment issue, as it was being separately contested. Instead, the Court focused on the RP's request to modify its order to exclude DPIL's properties from the restriction, which was granted.

3. Attendance of both brothers in Committee of Creditors' meetings:
The application also sought to clarify the attendance of both brothers, Mr. Amit Suresh Bhatnagar and Mr. Sumit Suresh Bhatnagar, in the Committee of Creditors' meetings. The Court referred to a previous order that allowed attendance for meetings scheduled by the RP, provided the Investigating Officer (IO) was informed. The Special Public Prosecutor clarified that there was no objection to both brothers attending these meetings. The Court emphasized that the RP should notify the IO at least 48 hours before any critical event, ensuring compliance with the legal process.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the modification application, clarifying that the properties owned by DPIL were not covered by the June 18, 2019 order. It also ensured the participation of both brothers in the Committee of Creditors' meetings, provided the IO was informed in a timely manner. The Court's decision aimed to facilitate the CIRP process while maintaining legal oversight and compliance.