9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 219 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyCorporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 - Held that - It is now a matter of record that in subsequent development this bench in IDBI Bank Ltd. v. Jaypee Infratech Ltd. 2017 (10) TMI 147 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD in respect of the same Corporate Debtor Company has already initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional Shri Anuj Jain by directing him to take over the management of Company and manage the affairs of the Company. In the light of aforesaid order, it is now not necessary to go into the merits of the Present Company Petition and to deal with and determine the status of applicants as of Financial Creditors / Operation Creditors as the case may be and their eligibility for filing the present application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, before this Court. Considering the above stated factual/legal position in the matter we feel the present Company Petition now becomes infructuous. The legal issue, which is subject matter of the present petition on the status of fixed depositors as Financial Creditors can be dealt with by this Court in appropriate case on some other occasion. Hence, such issue is kept open. The present petition is being disposed of as become infructuous.
Issues:
1. Initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for default in payment of fixed deposits. 2. Claim of petitioners as 'Financial Creditors' under Section 5(7) of the Code. 3. Objection to the maintainability of the petition by the Respondent/Corporate Debtor Company. 4. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional in a related matter. 5. Disposal of the present petition due to subsequent developments. 6. Observations on the status of petitioners as stakeholders and the role of the IRP. Issue 1: The petition was filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by depositors seeking Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process due to default in payment of fixed deposits by the Corporate Debtor company. The outstanding amount defaulted was detailed, and the petitioners claimed 'Financial Creditor' status under Section 5(7) of the Code. Issue 2: The Respondent/Corporate Debtor objected to the petition's maintainability, arguing that the matter did not fall under the Code's scope. They contended that an extension for repayment had been granted earlier. However, subsequent developments revealed the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process for the same Corporate Debtor, making the present petition infructuous. Issue 3: The Tribunal heard submissions from both parties and noted the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional in a related matter. Given the initiation of the resolution process, the Tribunal found the present petition to be infructuous, not requiring a determination of the petitioners' status as creditors under the Code. Issue 4: In light of the above, the Tribunal observed that the legal issue regarding the status of fixed depositors as 'Financial Creditors' could be addressed in the future. The petition was disposed of as infructuous, with a directive for the IRP to consider the interests of stakeholders, including the petitioners, in line with the principles of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Issue 5: The Tribunal referred to the Bankruptcy Law Committee Report and highlighted principles guiding the design of insolvency and bankruptcy resolution frameworks. These principles were seen as incorporated in the Code, emphasizing the need for a time-bound, collective process that respects the rights of all creditors equally. Issue 6: Based on the guiding principles and the Code's preamble, the Tribunal expected the IRP to consider the petitioners' claims as stakeholders with significant needs. The IRP was directed to act in accordance with the Code and other applicable laws, ensuring equitable treatment of all stakeholders. The petition was finally disposed of with these observations.
|
