2018 (6) TMI 906 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Corporate insolvency process - Held that - Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, learned Advocate accepts notice on behalf of 1st Respondent No. 1 - Ultratech Cement Limited. Mr. Sumant Batra and Ms. Puja Chakraborty accept notice on behalf of Respondent No. 3 Bank of Baroda on behalf of the Committee of Creditors . They are allowed a weeks time to file their respective reply Affidavits. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed by the Appellant within 5 days thereof. In the meantime, let notice be issued on Respondent No. 2, through Resolution Professional, by Speed Post. Requisites along with process fee, if not filed, be filed by 07.05.2018. If the Appellant provides the e-mail address of Respondent No. 2, let notice be also issued through e-mail. Dasti service is permitted. The caveator if so required may file a fresh Caveat Petition in terms with the provisions of the order passed under Rule 104 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 showing proper Memo of Parties with proper prayer. If such application is filed by 07.05.2018, Office will accept the same along with Service Report Post the Appeal for Admission on 22nd May, 2018

Summary

Issues:
1. Notice acceptance and filing of reply affidavits by the parties.
2. Caveat petition filing and disposal.
3. Certified copy submission of the impugned order.
4. Approval of Resolution Plans during the pendency of the Appeal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment begins with the acceptance of notice by the parties involved in the case. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal accepts notice on behalf of Ultratech Cement Limited, while Mr. Sumant Batra and Ms. Puja Chakraborty accept notice on behalf of Bank of Baroda representing the Committee of Creditors. They are granted time to file their reply affidavits, with the Appellant allowed to file a rejoinder within five days. Notice is to be issued on Respondent No. 2 through the Resolution Professional, and the necessary requisites and process fee are to be filed by a specified date.

2. A Caveat Petition is discussed, highlighting errors in the provision of section and the cause title. The judgment clarifies that no specific order is passed on this petition due to the mentioned discrepancies. The caveator is given the option to file a fresh Caveat Petition in accordance with the NCLAT Rules, showing proper 'Memo of Parties' and prayer. The disposal of Caveat Petition No. 255 of 2018 is confirmed, with instructions for further actions if required.

3. The judgment instructs the counsel for the appellant to file a certified copy of the impugned order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in a specified timeframe. This submission is crucial for the progression of the case and is mandated by the tribunal.

4. Lastly, the judgment addresses the approval of Resolution Plans during the pendency of the Appeal. It is stated that the Committee of Creditors and the Adjudicating Authority have the authority to approve a Resolution Plan, subject to the decision of the ongoing Appeal. This provision allows for the consideration and potential approval of various Plans, ensuring flexibility in the resolution process.