2020 (9) TMI 890 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Approval of Resolution Plan - payment of award amount - HELD THAT - Since the petitioner says that they have 30 per cent of shareholding in the first respondent company and have also filed application under 241- 242 of the Companies Act, this application ought to be decided in the interest of justice. In IA No. 17/CTB/2020, the first respondent shall not distribute the award amount to the second respondent until further orders of this Tribunal. The respondents shall file their counter on or before 31.03.2020 in the registry after serving the copy to the other side. Petitioners shall file their rejoinder, if any on or before 13.04.2020. Post the matter on 17.04.2020 for further hearing.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the approval of resolution plan by NCLT Kolkata Bench.
2. Dispute over distribution of arbitration award amount between first and second respondents.
3. Locus standi of petitioner to file the application.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the challenge to the approval of the resolution plan by NCLT Kolkata Bench. The Bank of Baroda contested the order of approval before NCLAT, which was subsequently rejected. However, an appeal was made to the Hon'ble Apex Court, resulting in a stay of operation and implementation of the impugned order by the Supreme Court. This issue pertains to the resolution plan approval process and the subsequent legal challenges faced by the parties involved.

2. The dispute over the distribution of the arbitration award amount is highlighted in the judgment. The first respondent seeks to pursue the amount held by the Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The petitioner contends that the award amount should be paid to the second respondent based on a board resolution of the first respondent company. The Tribunal intervenes to protect the petitioner's rights, allowing the first respondent to receive the amount but prohibiting direct payment to the second respondent without further orders. This issue involves the interpretation of contractual agreements and the rightful recipient of the arbitration award.

3. The issue of locus standi of the petitioner to file the application is also examined in the judgment. The second respondent argues that the petitioner lacks standing in the matter, asserting that it is a dispute between the first and second respondent companies regarding loan agreements. However, the petitioner claims a 30% shareholding in the first respondent company and has filed an application under sections 241-242 of the Companies Act. The Tribunal deems it necessary to decide the application in the interest of justice, considering the petitioner's stake in the first respondent company. This issue delves into the legal standing of the petitioner and their rights in the context of the dispute between the two respondent companies.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses multiple complex legal issues, including challenges to resolution plan approval, disputes over arbitration award distribution, and the locus standi of the petitioner in the application filed. The Tribunal provides detailed analysis and directions for further proceedings, ensuring a fair and just resolution of the matters at hand.