9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 1347 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyStay of the impugned order as regards making the payment of IRP costs - Appellant says that the direction in clause 4 is capable of being construed as direction against original Corporate Debtor, Arcelormittal Nippon Steel India Limited - HELD THAT - Prima facie it appears that the Resolution Applicant has been treated as the Corporate Debtor but that would be the subject of determination when the matter is heard. The tone and tenor of the aforesaid clause 4 is bound to raise the apprehension in the mind of the original Corporate Debtor that this direction has been passed against it and in the event of non-compliance the consequences as spelt out in clause 5 of para 68 may ensue. List the appeal along with Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1038 of 2020 for admission (after notice) on 22nd January, 2021.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of direction regarding payment of IRP costs to 'OSPIL' by the original Corporate Debtor. 2. Treatment of Resolution Applicant as the Corporate Debtor. 3. Apprehension regarding consequences of non-compliance with the direction. 4. Issuance of notice against Respondents and tagging of the appeal with another case. 5. Operation of interim direction in the present appeal. 6. Listing the appeal for admission on a specified date. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of direction regarding payment of IRP costs The judgment addresses the concern raised by the Appellant regarding the direction in the impugned order for the original Corporate Debtor to make the payment of IRP costs to 'OSPIL' by a specified date. The Appellant argues that the direction could be misconstrued as being against them, i.e., 'Arcelormittal Nippon Steel India Limited.' The Tribunal acknowledges this concern and decides to delve deeper into this matter during the hearing. Issue 2: Treatment of Resolution Applicant as the Corporate Debtor There is a preliminary observation that the Resolution Applicant has been perceived as the Corporate Debtor in the impugned order. However, this characterization is deemed to require further scrutiny and clarification during the proceedings. The Tribunal notes that the language used in the order might create confusion regarding the party against whom the direction is intended. Issue 3: Apprehension regarding consequences of non-compliance The judgment emphasizes the potential apprehension that the original Corporate Debtor may have due to the wording of the order and the consequences outlined in case of non-compliance. The Tribunal acknowledges the need to address this apprehension and ensure clarity regarding the responsibilities of the parties involved. Issue 4: Issuance of notice against Respondents and tagging of the appeal To address the raised issues effectively, the Tribunal directs the issuance of notice against the Respondents and decides to consolidate the present appeal with another related case. The Appellant is instructed to provide contact details of the Respondents for the issuance of notice through appropriate channels within a specified timeframe. Issue 5: Operation of interim direction The judgment clarifies that the interim direction issued in a prior case shall also apply to the present appeal until further orders are passed. This decision aims to maintain consistency and avoid any confusion or discrepancies in the application of interim measures. Issue 6: Listing the appeal for admission Finally, the Tribunal schedules the appeal along with the related case 'for admission (after notice)' on a specific date, ensuring a structured and timely progression of the legal proceedings. This step indicates the Tribunal's commitment to addressing the issues raised and providing a platform for a comprehensive review of the matter. Overall, the judgment reflects a meticulous approach to resolving the identified issues, ensuring procedural fairness, and maintaining clarity in the legal process.
|
