2022 (6) TMI 495 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Violation of intellectual property and proprietary rights - injunction restraining the Respondent, its agents, servants and any and all persons acting for and through them from manufacturing, repairing and supplying any and all products/parts of ReGen make WTGs in the Indian Subcontinent - direction to Respondent to hand over to the Applicant any and all purchase orders, invoices, work orders etc. raised for the purpose of manufacture and supply of goods and services to third parties for use in ReGen make WTGs - HELD THAT - The CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor in IBA/1099/2019, viz. Regen Powertech Private Limited on 09.12.2019 and Mr. Ebenezer Inbaraj was appointed as Resolution Professional. It is placed on record that Resolution Plan in respect of the said Corporate Debtor was approved by this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 01.02.2022 in IA/460/2021 in IBA/1099/2019 and the approved plan is now in the implementation stage. This Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan submitted in respect of Regen Powertech Private Limited on 01.02.2022, in the event of approval of the resolution plan all the prayers sought above turned infructuous and nothing survives in these applications - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for injunction under Section 60(5) r/w 25(2)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Application under Rule 11 of National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 to dismiss a previous application.
3. Application for directions under Section 25(1) r/w 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 regarding leased properties.
4. Application for directions under Section 25(1) r/w 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 regarding termination of long-term leases.

Analysis:
1. The first application sought injunctions against manufacturing, repairing, and supplying products violating intellectual property rights. The second application aimed to dismiss the first application. The third and fourth applications requested directions regarding leased properties and termination of long-term leases. The Tribunal noted the approval of the resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor, rendering the prayers in the applications obsolete due to the approved plan being in the implementation stage.

2. The Tribunal highlighted that the Resolution Plan for the Corporate Debtor was approved, making the prayers in the applications irrelevant. As a result, all applications were dismissed as infructuous. The applications involved various reliefs sought by the Resolution Professional and other parties, but with the resolution plan approved, the Tribunal found no need to address the requests made in the applications.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that the approval of the resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor had a significant impact on the applications before it. The Tribunal clarified that since the resolution plan was approved and in the implementation stage, the prayers and reliefs sought in the applications had become infructuous. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the applications as they no longer held relevance in light of the approved resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the approved resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor had rendered the applications moot. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the impact of the resolution plan approval on the relief sought in the applications. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed all the applications as infructuous due to the resolution plan being approved and in the process of implementation.