9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 33 - SC - Indian LawsRecovery alongwith interest - restraint from making any payments towards their fixed deposits - HELD THAT - It is deemed not necessary to examine the merit of the contentions made by the learned Senior Counsel. The depositors are being represented by the Authorized Representative before the Committee of Creditors. We leave it open to the Appellants to raise all points and contentions before the Committee of Creditors, the Administrator and if necessary, the NCLT - In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Committee of Creditors taken on 30.12.2019. We are informed that there are nearly one lakh depositors who have invested their life time earnings with Respondent No.1. Some of the deposits have matured and some of the depositors are critically ill. We have no doubt that the concerns of the depositors and their rights shall be considered in accordance with law. Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
Interim orders restraining payments to depositors by Respondent No.1-DHFL, initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by Reserve Bank of India, consideration of depositors' claims by Committee of Creditors, legality of Committee's decision to allow lending operations without paying depositors. Interim Orders by High Court and Debts Recovery Tribunal: The appeals were filed against interim orders by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai, restraining Respondent No.1-DHFL from making payments towards fixed deposits, leading to the challenge by depositors. The High Court's orders from 30.09.2019 to 13.11.2019 restrained payments to unsecured creditors, including depositors. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP): The Reserve Bank of India filed an application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) to initiate CIRP against Respondent No.1-DHFL, leading to the appointment of an Administrator and imposition of a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. The NCLT confirmed the appointment of the Administrator and directed the initiation of insolvency resolution process. Consideration of Depositors' Claims by Committee of Creditors: The Administrator was directed to update the list of depositors and their outstanding amounts, with the NCLT referring to the depositors in its order dated 03.12.2019. Public depositors were included as a class of creditors under the IBC, and the Committee of Creditors decided to take the depositors' interests into account during the resolution process. Legality of Committee's Decision on Lending Operations: The Appellants sought to restrain Respondent No.1 from commencing lending operations until depositors' matured deposits were paid. The Court opined that the claims of depositors should be considered by the Committee of Creditors without being influenced by previous orders, leaving it open for the Appellants to raise contentions before the Committee, Administrator, and NCLT. The Court declined to interfere with the Committee's decision, emphasizing the importance of considering depositors' concerns and rights in accordance with the law. Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the Court highlighting the need to consider depositors' rights and concerns, especially for those who have invested their life savings with Respondent No.1-DHFL. The judgment emphasized the importance of following due process and legal considerations in handling depositors' claims during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
|
