9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 261 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyApproval of Resolution Plan - Fresh claim based on Foreign Judgement - Allegation that the order is a non-speaking one - Section 44A of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - It is represented on behalf of the Appellant that the I B Code, 2016 does not impose any bar upon this Tribunal , to take cognizance of a Foreign Judgement . HELD THAT - In so far as the instant Appeal is concerned, this Tribunal pertinently points out that Section 60(5) of the I B Code, 2016 concerns with the Applications against a Corporate Debtor undergoing CIRP or claims against such Corporate Debtor , undergoing CIRP . Also that the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal is enjoined with the power to determine any question of Law or Fact arising out of in, or in relation to the Insolvency Resolution or Liquidation Proceedings of the Corporate Debtor, or Corporate Person under this Code - It cannot be disputed that the Company was long out of the Insolvency and CIRP of the Company stood completed upon passing of the Plan Approval Order. Suffice it for this Tribunal to point out that the Approved Resolution Plan stood implemented as on date. This Tribunal in a crystalline manner points out that all such claims which were not a part of the Resolution Plan stood extinguished, on the date of Approval of Resolution Plan and further no individual, is permitted to initiate or continue any proceedings , in regard to a claim , which was not part of the Resolution Plan . Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Interlocutory Application filed by the Appellant. 2. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority/NCLT to execute a Foreign Judgment. 3. Applicability of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited. 4. Recognition and enforceability of the Foreign Judgment under Indian Law. Summary: Issue 1: Maintainability of the Interlocutory Application The Appellant filed an Interlocutory Application seeking a direction against the Respondent to pay an aggregate amount of ZAR 1,17,81,893.174 or its equivalent in Indian Rupees. The Adjudicating Authority/NCLT, Mumbai Bench, dismissed the application as not maintainable, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, which held that all claims not part of the approved Resolution Plan stand extinguished. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority/NCLT to Execute a Foreign Judgment The Appellant contended that the impugned order was illegal and invalid as it was a non-speaking order and lacked judicial application of mind. The Appellant argued that the I&B Code, 2016, does not impose any bar on the Tribunal to take cognizance of a Foreign Judgment. However, the Respondent argued that the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Tribunal lacks the necessary jurisdiction to execute a Foreign Judgment under the I&B Code, 2016. Issue 3: Applicability of the Principles Laid Down by the Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited The Appellant argued that the principles enunciated in the Supreme Court's judgment do not apply to their case as their claim arose during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and after the Resolution Plan was approved. The Respondent countered that all claims not part of the Resolution Plan stand extinguished, as per the Supreme Court's judgment. Issue 4: Recognition and Enforceability of the Foreign Judgment under Indian Law The Appellant annexed the South Africa High Court Judgment to disclose the action taken before approaching the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal. The Respondent argued that the Foreign Judgment, which was passed ex parte, cannot be enforced in India as per Section 44A read with Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Tribunal held that it is not the proper forum to execute the Foreign Judgment and that the Appellant cannot circumvent the law. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the application filed by the Appellant was not maintainable and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that all claims not part of the Resolution Plan stand extinguished and that it does not have the jurisdiction to execute a Foreign Judgment. The appeal was found to be without merit and was dismissed with no costs.
|
