9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 245 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyDirection to allow the applicant physical access to the registered office and corporate office of the Corporate Debtor to enable the applicant to take custody of the books of accounts and all other records of the Corporate Debtor - disclosure of applicant full details and particulars of the steps taken by it in relation to the assets and properties of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT - Filing of an application like the one in hand as against one of the members of the CoC is found not fair and just. It is the CoC who has to give proper diction to RP to expedite the process so as to reduce the CIRP cost. If one among the members of the CoC is holding possession of secured interest and registered office of the CD, keeping in hand even long after the initiation of CIRP, it is improper and contrary to the provisions of the Code. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for the R1 that the only predicament of the R1 in not allowing the Resolution Professional to get access to the Registered Office of the Corporate Debtor in the absence of any specific order from the Adjudicating Authority because of litigious nature of the Corporate Debtor and its suspended directors is found devoid of any merit. R1 is bound to hand over all the assets in its possession inclusive of the registered office. In view of the facts that SBI holds possession of the registered office and according to R4 to R6 all the documents are kept in the office, unless and until it is open, the RP could not ascertain what further documents or information is required from R4 to R6 - R1/State Bank of India is directed to forthwith hand over possession of all the assets of the CD and the registered office and corporate office of the Corporate Debtor in its possession to the RP - Application allowed.
Issues:
Interlocutory Application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for directions against State Bank of India and suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor. Analysis: The Resolution Professional (RP) filed an application seeking directions against State Bank of India and suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor. The RP requested orders for physical access to the registered office, handover of assets, and disclosure of details regarding the Corporate Debtor's property and records. The urgency of the matter was acknowledged due to the COVID-19 situation, leading to a hearing via Video Conferencing. While the RP and some respondents' counsels participated, others did not. The unique nature of the application involved the RP seeking possession of assets held by the State Bank of India and cooperation from the suspended directors for successful Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The RP argued that despite possession of certain property by the State Bank of India under the SARFAESI Act, the RP should have access to take custody of such property as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The RP highlighted the lack of access to the Corporate Debtor's offices and records, hindering the CIRP process. The RP also faced non-cooperation from the suspended directors, leading to delays and the need for further directions. The State Bank of India expressed no objection to some of the RP's requests but cited the absence of a specific order for access to the Registered Office due to the litigious nature of the Corporate Debtor and its directors. The Suspended Board of Directors emphasized the lack of available information and assets in their possession, shifting the focus to the State Bank of India for details on the Corporate Debtor's property and accounts. Despite readiness to assist, the Suspended Board of Directors highlighted the absence of relevant information with them. After hearing all parties, the Tribunal found the application against a CoC member unjust and emphasized the CoC's role in facilitating the RP's work efficiently. The Tribunal directed State Bank of India to hand over assets and offices to the RP, with the RP opening the office in the presence of directors to take custody of records. Cooperation from the suspended directors was mandated, with a provision for contempt proceedings in case of non-compliance. In conclusion, the Tribunal issued specific directions to assist the RP in completing the CIRP successfully, emphasizing cooperation, access to assets, and disclosure of information. The judgment aimed to streamline the process, avoid litigation, and ensure compliance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
|
