|
Advanced Search Options
IBC - Case Laws
Showing 681 to 700 of 9152 Records
-
2023 (12) TMI 1171
Initiation of CIRP - NCLT admitted the application - No outstanding dues - Squaring off of loans - case of appellant is that entire outstanding duty along with unsecured loans belonging to Shankar Khandelwal, his wife Guman Khandelwal and their concerns were squared off against outstanding debts and adjustment paying off balance outstanding in terms of LLP Agreement - HELD THAT:- From the LLP Agreement dated 31.12.2015, it becomes clear that the Respondent Shankar Khandelwal resigned on 31.12.2015 to be effective from 01.04.2016 and the balance sheet of Corporate Debtor LLP was necessary to be drawn accordingly to settle his dues. It is also noteworthy that all outstanding of Guman Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd and Guman Furniture & Services Pvt. Ltd., was agreed to be adjusted to the account of outstanding partner i.e., the Respondent Shankar Khandelwal.
The Respondent Shankar Khandelwal filed an application under Section 7 of Code alleging non-payment of financial debt of Rs. 38,73,94,501/- which has been disputed by the Appellant stating this to be highly inflated amount due from the Corporate Debtor whereas the only Rs. 5,16,55,842/- was due and payable to the Respondent Shankar Khandelwal by the Corporate Debtor at the time of his retirement from the LLP - the pleadings of the Appellant is accepted that based on combined examination of Ledger and balance sheet it is proven that all dues towards the Respondent Shankar Khandelwal stand settled.
It is also noted that the allegations of the Appellants that the Respondent Shankar Khandelwal is allegedly attempting to recover tainted money from Corporate Debtor, which is forming a part of the proceeds of crime. Even if the alleged loan is found to not be a part of the proceeds of crime, any attempts towards recovery of the amount would have to be adjudicated by a civil court under a recovery suit. The intent of IBC is not to facilitate recovery for creditors - it is agreed that once all outstanding dues have been paid by the Corporate Debtor to the Respondent Shankar Khandelwal, disputed claims if any, can be raised in suitable other legal forum and IBC can not be used for such recovery proceeding.
The main basis contained in the Impugned Order for admission of the Application under Section 7 of the Code is that the Corporate Debtor failed to show any valid proof that debt due and payment to the Respondent Shankar Khandelwal was paid in his individual capacity - No amount of financial debt was due to the Respondent Shankar Khandelwal on the date of filing of the Application under Section 7 of the Code before the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority has patently erred in admitting the Application filed by the Respondent Shankar Khandelwal vide its Impugned Order dated 13.10.2021.
The Adjudicating Authority erred in passing the Impugned Order dated 13.10.2021 admitting application under Section 7 of the Code and therefore Impugned Order deserves to be set aside accordingly - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1150
Violation of principles of natural justice - observations against the erstwhile Liquidator / the Appellant - Impugned Order was passed in the absence of appellant - whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in making some observations against the erstwhile Liquidator / the Appellant herein, and directing the Registry to forward a copy of the Compliance Affidavit and report of the Court Commissioner to IBBI? - HELD THAT:- The chronology of dates and events establishes that the Appellant was present and heard on several dates specifically regarding the issue on hand. It is pertinent to mention that when the Advocate Commissioner was appointed to facilitate the handover of the documents and implement the Order of the Adjudicating Authority regarding the transition of the control and custody of the statements, records and assets of the Corporate Debtor Company, there was no whisper of protest by the Appellant herein or any bonafide submission before the Adjudicating Authority that the transition would be done within the time frame given by the Adjudicating Authority. The fact that one weeks’ time was given and thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority had directed both the parties to meet, cooperate and implement the Order is not denied - the Appellant was very much present for all previous hearings, relevant to the matter on hand, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed only on account of the situation which has arisen based on the non-handing over of the said documents to the new Liquidator / First Respondent, and therefore, his contention that Principles of Natural Justice was not adhered to, is untenable.
There are no illegality or infirmity in the Impugned Order - appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1149
Withdrawal of the application for approval of the Resolution Plan - breach of addendum dated 18.06.2021 and the conditions of LoI - Issuance of fresh Form G - forfeiture of performance guarantee - exclusion of the period in the CIRP.
Whether after approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, the Appellant- Successful Resolution Applicant has committed breach of addendum dated 18.06.2021 and the conditions of LoI? - HELD THAT:- The Resolution Applicant who was permitted to participate in the Resolution Process was on account of its net worth, its background and experience. It is on record that while examining the eligibility of the Resolution Applicant, its net worth was examined with reference to ‘Shoora Capital’ and in the net worth of Resolution Applicant’s, group was claimed in the Resolution Plan - it is clear that the Resolution Applicant has undertaken in the addendum to the Resolution Plan dated 18.06.2021 as well as by LoI dated 28.07.2021 that it shall not change its shareholding in directorship and constitutional pattern of the Resolution Applicant for a period of 5 years from the effective date and for changes if any. Approval of two leading Financial Creditors shall be obtained. Replies to emails received from the Resolution Applicant indicate that no approval was taken from the Financial Creditor for effecting any change in constitutional pattern of the Resolution Applicant and directorship - Adjudicating Authority after considering the submissions has rightly come to the conclusion that the breach was committed by the Resolution Applicant of the addendum dated 18.06.2021 and the conditions as included in the LoI dated 28.07.2021.
Whether in the facts of the present case, CoC was precluded from taking any decision to issue fresh Form G and to withdraw the Resolution Plan which was earlier approved? - HELD THAT:- Present is a case where in essence we may say it is a case of sale of Resolution Plan approved by the CoC to third party. CoC approves the Resolution Plan looking to the credentials of the Resolution Applicant and its credibility and finances. When very basis of Resolution Applicant is knocked out and it changes its constitution substantially the CoC cannot be faulted in view of breach of the conditions by the Resolution Applicant, application for approval of the Resolution Plan be withdrawn - it is concluded that the Resolution Applicant has violated the addendum of the Resolution Plan as well as undertaking as given in the LoI and the Adjudicating Authority has rightly returned the finding.
Whether the decision of the CoC dated 21.12.2022 forfeiting the performance guarantee of Rs.20 Crores given by the Appellant is not in accordance with law? - HELD THAT:- Regulation 36B (4A) provides that performance security shall stand forfeited if the Resolution Applicant of such plan, after its approval by the Adjudicating Authority, fails to implement or contributes to the failure of implementation of that plan. Regulation (4-A) comes in operation after approval of the Resolution Plan and it provides that ‘performance security shall stand forfeited’ - Present is not a case where CoC has passed Resolution dated 21.12.2022 in reference to Regulation 36B (4-A). The minutes of the meeting specifically refers to clause 13.2 of the RFRP. The action of the CoC is fully covered by clause 13.2 of the RFRP and there is no occasion to resort to Regulation 36B (4-A) of the Regulation. Regulation 36B (4F) only contemplate one contingency that where performance security shall stand forfeited but the said provision does not exclude forfeiture of performance security in other conditions as contemplated in RFRP. We, thus, are of the view that the decision of the CoC for forfeiting the performance security is in accordance with RFRP. It is to be noted that at no point of time, any provision of the RFRP was challenged and Resolution Applicant has undertaken to abide by all terms and conditions of the RFRP.
Whether the Adjudicating Authority was not entitled to grant exclusion of the period in the CIRP? - HELD THAT:- The exclusion of the time granted by the Adjudicating Authority was consequent to decision taken to allow the application for withdrawal of the Resolution Plan. The order passed by the Adjudicating Authority granting exclusion of time is consequential to the order passed in IA No.985 of 2023. The Adjudicating Authority in its impugned order has made observations in paragraph 32(ix) and (x) as extracted above that the Corporate Debtor Company is a going concern and there is buoyancy in the market for its products of non-ferrous metals. It is well settled that the object and purpose of the IBC is to revive the Corporate Debtor and when the Adjudicating Authority has taken decision to issue fresh Form G by excluded the period from 05.02.2021 till passing of the order, no exception can be taken to said direction - there are no error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority excluding the period from 05.02.2021 till passing of the order in the CIRP and issuing direction to issue fresh Form-G.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1148
Challenge to direction to Resolution Professional and CoC to move an application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for seeking clarification in context of the order dated 21.11.2013 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that resolution plan has been approved with 100% CoC and the same has also received approval by the Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order.
On looking into the order dated 21.11.2013 a direction was to Sahara Group of Companies not to part with any movable and immovable properties until further orders. Direction to Sahara group of companies not to part with movable and immovable properties can have no bearing with resolution plan submitted by Successful Resolution Applicant for consideration by the Adjudicating Authority. The order dated 21.11.2013 cannot be read as any kind of restraint order in the CIRP process of the Corporate Debtor Baghauli Sugar & Distillery Ltd. & Anr. which is also a Sahara group of company.
The clarification which was given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the aforesaid order clearly indicate that Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that on the strength of the order dated 21.11.2013 no proceedings before National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission can be stopped. Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically made it clear that order dated 21.11.2013 shall not prevent the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission from proceeding and passing order in accordance with law. The aforesaid clarification is also relevant with regard to CIRP Process of the Corporate Debtor and the intent and purpose of the order dated 21.11.2013 is very clear as clarified in order dated 27.04.2016.
The order dated 21.11.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has no fetter in the CIRP process of the Corporate Debtor nor it can fetter the approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority which has been approved by 100% CoC - Adjudicating Authority committed error in putting a condition in the order approving the resolution plan that Resolution Professional and CoC to obtain a clarification from the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to order dated 21.11.2013.
Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1147
CIRP - Termination of Development Agreement and Supplemental Agreement and Power of Attorney executed between Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ‘Bengal Shelter Housing Development Limited’- Respondent No.1 - The Respondent No.1 engaged Respondent No.2- ‘Barnaparichay Book Mall Pvt. Ltd.’, a wholly owned subsidiary of Respondent No.1 for implementing the said Development Agreement. An Application under Section 7 was filed by ‘Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd.’ against Respondent No.2 (herein after referred to as Corporate Debtor) on which application by an order dated 09.08.2019 CIRP commenced under the order of the Adjudicating Authority.
HELD THAT:- From the materials on record, it is clear that the Appellant who was owner of the premises and only right for development of the premises was given to Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 having failed to carry out the development as per the terms and conditions, Kolkata Municipal Corporation has every jurisdiction to cancel the agreement. The cancellation of the agreement being outside the insolvency process, Respondent No.3 could not have brought issue of cancellation of the agreement before the Adjudicating Authority by filing the application IA No.138 of 2022. Respondent No.1 whose Development Agreement was cancelled was free to take such legal proceeding against the Appellant as may be permissible. It is relevant to notice that no proceedings were initiated by Respondent No.1 questioning the termination of agreement dated 17.01.2022.
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation who is owner of the premises by Development Agreement gave right of development of the premises to the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.1 has unauthorisedly without prior approval of the Appellant as alleged Assignment Agreement dated 06.03.2008 has given to the Corporate Debtor. The possession of the premises has to be of Respondent No.1 who was given possession by the Appellant. In event, the Respondent No.1 illegally transferred the possession to Respondent No.2 contrary to the Development Agreement for protection of such possession, Section 14(1)(d) cannot be relied on.
The Adjudicating Authority has come to a wrong conclusion that the Assignment Agreement dated 06.03.2008 is lawful and valid without looking to the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement which was made by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in favour of the Respondent No.1 dated 24.02.2006. No valid right could flow to Respondent No.2 in pursuance of the Arrangement Agreement dated 06.03.2008, hence, no right or interest created by Corporate Debtor by virtue of Arrangement Agreement dated 06.03.2008 which was neither obtained with the consent of the Appellant nor the said Arrangement Agreement even communicated to the Appellant by Respondent No.1. The Corporate Debtor had no right to be in possession of the premises nor its possession was lawful.
The Respondent No.1 has brought its 100% subsidiary, Respondent No.2 without there being any consent or permission of the Appellant and in the CIRP of the Respondent No.2, the assets are sought to be included whereas the assets premises are not the assets of the Corporate Debtor - The premises, in question, cannot be subject matter of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. Adjudicating Authority committed error in directing the Appellant to handover the possession of the premises to the Resolution Professional. The order passed by the Adjudicating Authority setting aside the order dated 17.01.2022 terminating Development Agreement, Supplemental Agreement and Power of Attorney cannot be sustained.
The order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1146
CIRP - Direction to pay the interest due and payable from the date of termination of the electricity i.e. March 01, 2016 connection in the name of the Corporate Debtor, till the date of adjudication of the present application - the grievance of the applicant is that the interest of the security deposits is not being paid which according to the regulation the respondent was entitled.
HELD THAT:- The issues which are sought to be raised in this application were not before the Adjudicating Authority in this appeal.
Recording the statement of counsel for the respondent (who is applicant here) that the appellant may consider in accordance with the application rules and regulations the appeal was disposed of. In event, the said consideration is not favourable to the applicant it is always open to the applicant to file appropriate application before the Adjudicating Authority for relief, if any.
The said issues cannot be entertained in this application nor adjudicated by this Tribunal in this appeal - application disposed off.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1076
Maintainability of section 7 application - initiation of CIRP - inter corporate deposit of Rs.7 Crores is captured in an unstamped document with the title of “confirmation and undertaking” @ interest of 1% per month - Financial Creditor/R2 had made an investment of a sum of rupees seven crores in the project developed by the CD/ R1 or it is a loan?
Reliance upon unstamped document in deciding CIRP - HELD THAT:- Adjudicating Authority has come to a conclusion that there is a financial debt, there is a default basis other documents and no reliance whatsoever nature has been placed on the confirmation and undertaking dated 29.09.2015. Since Adjudicating Authority has not relied upon that and have come to a conclusion that there is a debt and default and demand notice which is not disputed and accordingly concluded that sufficient reasons exists for Section 7 CIRP proceedings. The plea of the Appellant, to claim that the unstamped agreement/instrument in question cannot be admitted into evidence under the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, as a defense, cannot render the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) non-maintainable, when there exists other material on record to prove existence of default in payment of debt - there are no fault in the orders of the Adjudicating Authority.
Financial Creditor made an investment or gave a loan - HELD THAT:- There is a contradiction to the nature of amount payable to the Financial Creditor which is admitted in the audited financial statements placed by the Corporate Debtor, being shown as unsecured loan, and which has also been noted by the Adjudicating Authority. Furthermore, R1 himself has admitted that it has serviced the interest in accordance with the terms of the confirmation and undertaking till June 2017. National E Governance Services Limited (NeSL) Report dated 24.06.2020, also reflects this as a loan wherein the Date of Default is reflected as 23.12.2015 and the total outstanding is of Rs.4,80,80,000/- - Adjudicating authority has rightly come to the conclusion that it is a loan and allowed Section 7 proceedings under IBC.
Adjudicating Authority has come to a conclusion that there is a financial debt and there is a default on the basis of other documents, and no reliance whatsoever nature has been placed on the confirmation and undertaking dated 29.09.2015. Since Adjudicating Authority has not relied upon the “confirmation and undertaking” and has come to a conclusion that there is a debt and default and demand notice, which is not disputed and accordingly concluded that sufficient reasons exists for CIRP proceedings under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 - non-stamping of document does not render the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) application filed to be non-maintainable when there exists other material on record to prove existence of default in the payment of debt.
There are no error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority admitting Section 7 proceedings of the IBC against the CD/ M/s Shankheshwar Properties Pvt. Ltd. (R-1) - there is no merit in this appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1075
Approval of Resolution Plan - HELD THAT:- Adjudicating Authority has directed that the proceeds from sale of the aircraft will be deposited in an escrow account and be utilized to discharge the payments to various stakeholders in accordance with the Resolution Plan. Aircraft is a depreciating asset and huge costs are being incurred for preservation and parking of the same. Appellant was trying to recover its dues de horse the Resolution Plan. Erstwhile Resolution Professional has complied with the NCLAT order and communicated the computation of dues of the workmen and employees to the Successful Resolution Applicant. The impugned order fully protects the interests of the Appellant since it has directed the amount proceeds from the sale to be kept in escrow account.
Approval of the Resolution Plan - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order while considering the rival submission of the parties has come to the conclusion that the sale process with regard to which LoI was issued on 19.10.2022 had concluded in view of the performance on the part of the Ace Aviation. Submission of the Successful Resolution Applicant for re-bidding insofar as three aircrafts was concerned was not accepted. With regard to other two aircrafts whose process was halted on 11.11.2022, direction was issued to reinitiate the process and conclude the sale of aircrafts after considering the Ace Aviation as one of the eligible bidders. The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in directing to conclude the sale agreement of three aircrafts for which LoI was already issued - there are no good ground to interfere with the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in IA No.3747 of 2022. The interests of the Successful Resolution Applicant are also protected since the Adjudicating Authority had directed that the proceeds of the sale of aircrafts is to be deposited in the escrow account and dealt with in accordance with the approved Resolution Plan - The order disposing is not an order which has any consequence on the manner of distribution of the sale of the aircrafts as observed by the Adjudicating Authority sale proceeds has to be distributed as per the Resolution Plan. Rights and contentions of the Successful Resolution Applicant are left open to be raised at the relevant time with regard to distribution of sale proceeds as and when occasion arises.
Recovery of the PF and gratuity dues of the workmen and employees of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- The sale proceeds having been directed to be deposited in escrow account which has to be distributed in accordance with the approved Resolution Plan, the Appellants are fully protected the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority in no manner affects the entitlement of the Appellant- ‘All India Jet Airways Officers and Staff Association’ to receive their dues under the Resolution Plan as per order of this Appellate Tribunal dated 21.10.2022. The Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error in partly allowing IA No.883 of 2023 - there are no error in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in IA No.883 of 2023.
There are no grounds to interfere with the orders of the Adjudicating Authority - Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1074
Maintainability of appeal on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- The present appeal is directed against the order dated 06.12.2022 and filed on 04.02.2023. The period of 30 days, as prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Code, counted from 06.12.2022 expired on 05.01.2023 and further period of 15 days expired on 20.01.2023 whereas the appeal has been filed on 04.02.2023. It is pertinent to mention that the impugned order was not passed dismissing the application for non-prosecution rather the impugned order was passed dismissing the application having been rendered infructuous, therefore, the period of limitation would start from the date of order 06.12.2022 in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Nagrajan Vs. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. &Ors. [2021 (10) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT].
The appeal having been filed even after the expiry of further 15 days prescribed under Section 61(2) proviso, is not maintainable in view of a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of National Spot Exchange Limited Vs. Anil Kohli [2021 (9) TMI 1156 - SUPREME COURT].
This appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation and not maintainable, the Corporate Debtor has already been sold as going concern subsequent to the order dated 19.01.2023 passed in 1018 of 2022 and thereafter the change in the management has taken effect and the sale proceeds received from such sale have also been distributed to the stakeholders.
There is hardly any merit in the present appeal which is otherwise barred by limitation and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1073
Seeking Condonation of Delay of 15 days in filing the Appeal - sufficient cause for delay present or not - Appellant had waited for the outcome of the Liquidation Application before filing the instant Appeal - HELD THAT:- The discretion lies with the Courts to distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’ and only then to exercise discretion to condone the delay. In the instant case, it is crystal clear that the Appellant was aware of the Impugned order on 10.08.2023 itself and the justification given that the Appellant had requested the Third Respondent/The erstwhile RP to apply for a certified copy of the Impugned Order since it was not a party to the proceedings is rejected as Rule 50 read with Clause 31 of the Schedule of Fees of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 provides for the Registry to send a certified copy of the final Order to the parties concerned free of cost and the certified copies may be made available with costs as per schedule of fees, in all cases. Hence, it is clear that the Appellant itself could have applied for a certified copy by making an Application with the requisite fee, therefore, the contention of the Appellant that it was a Third party to the proceedings, is of no relevance.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V NAGARAJAN VERSUS SKS ISPAT AND POWER LTD. & ORS. [2021 (10) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT] addressed the issue of the commencement date of the period of limitation for filing an Appeal under Section 61 of the Code. In this aforenoted Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the question as to when the clock for calculating the limitation period would begin to run for Appeals filed under the Code and recorded the same in Paras 33 through 35, after taking into due consideration the provisions of Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, Section 12 of the Limitation Act, and Section 421 of the Companies Act holding that While it is true that the tribunals, and even this Court, may choose to exempt parties from compliance with this procedural requirement in the interest of substantial justice, as re-iterated in Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules, the discretionary waiver does not act as an automatic exception where litigants make no efforts to pursue a timely resolution of their grievance. The appellant having failed to apply for a certified copy, rendered the appeal filed before the NCLAT as clearly barred by limitation.
Neither the provisions of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 nor the Code bars the Appellant from filing an Appeal within the statutory limitation period provided for under Section 61(3) of the Code and requesting the erstwhile RP to seek a certified copy and awaiting the outcome of the Liquidation Application, further renders the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the delay may be condoned for the foregoing reasons, unsustainable - there are force in the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the First Respondent that the Appellant, having 85% of the voting share in the CoC of the Corporate Debtor, ought to have taken effective steps within the limitation period, which they have failed to do so.
The reasons given by the Applicant/Appellant do not constitute ‘sufficient cause’ for the Appellant to have filed the Appeal on the 45th day - Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1072
Validity of approved Resolution Plan - Appellant submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has erroneously allowed the Application seeking Liquidation on the ground that the Appellant had not adhered to the terms of the Resolution Plan - HELD THAT:- Admittedly there were several rounds of discussions held and the Appellant sent a letter dated 12.08.2021 where it sought for modification for the repayment Plan promising to deposit Rs.25 Crores in a no-lien account and a balance 15 Crores within three weeks from the date of approval - there are force in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the First Respondent that though the other CoC members, SBI and IDBI, did not accept the modified payment terms, the First Respondent being the majority voting shareholder of the CoC accepted the modified payment terms way back on 29.09.2021, but the Appellant did not comply with the terms and hence, no further opportunities are required to be given.
It is evident from the record that though almost two and half years has lapsed from the date of approval of the Plan and several opportunities were given to the Appellant and the modified payment terms were also accepted by the First Respondent, even then the Appellant did not pay the required amount of Rs. 83.07Cr by November 2021. Therefore, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that if the Appellant is allowed to manage the Corporate Debtor Company, the Appellant shall repay the money to the Bank in a ‘short period’, is untenable, specifically having regard to the fact that the Plan was approved way back in 2019, IBC is a time-bound process, and several opportunities were given for implementation of the original Plan as well as the modified Plan.
Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in EBIX SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF EDUCOMP SOLUTIONS LIMITED & ANR., KUNDAN CARE PRODUCTS LIMITED VERSUS MR AMIT GUPTA AND ORS. AND SEROCO LIGHTING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS RAVI KAPOOR RP FOR ARYA FILAMENTS PRIVATE LIMTIED & ORS. [2021 (9) TMI 672 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly emphasised the importance of adhering to strict timelines, keeping in view the scope and objective of the Code - In the instant case as the Appellant / SRA could not implement the Resolution Plan within the specified time, the Adjudicating Authority has rightly, as provided for under Section 33 of the Code, allowed application filed by the Monitoring Committee of Scott Garments and Canara Bank respectively, seeking Liquidation.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1018
Maintainability of section 7 application - application filed by the Appellant was clearly beyond three years and time barred or not - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that date of default has been mentioned as 31.03.2015 on which date the account of Corporate Debtor was declared as NPA, however, the Letter of Acceptance dated 24.04.2019 has also been pleaded in Part IV - Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has noticed the DRT Consent Terms dated 26.09.2022 and observed that fresh period of limitation shall start, hence the objection on the ground of limitation have no merit.
In so far as Consent Terms dated 26.09.2022 and fresh period of limitation thereafter, they have no relevance in the present application which was filed in the year 2021. However, the later part of the order where Letter of Acceptance dated 24.04.2019 has been noted is relevant for the purpose of limitation - The Letter of Acceptance is in the nature of agreement which is signed by all parties and amounts to fresh agreement between the parties. This fresh agreement acknowledges the debt of Rs.106,97,76,398.83/- along with interest. The Letter of Acceptance further provides that the Obligors shall jointly and/or severally to pay Rs.43,89,46,000/- along with interest towards the settlement of assigned debt due. The Letter of Acceptance which is an agreement between the parties shall give a fresh period of limitation after 24.04.2019, which is within three years of 01.11.2021, date on which Section 7 application was filed.
There shall be fresh period of limitation from 24.04.2019 and the application filed by the Appellant within three years from the said date was well within time. The Adjudicating Authority in Para 13 has also noticed the Letter of Acceptance dated 24.04.2019 for holding that objection on ground of limitation does not have any merit.
The application filed by the Financial Creditor was not barred by time and the debt and default being proved, the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in admitting Section 7 application. There is no merit in the Appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1017
Maintainability of Application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - delivery of the goods not proved - no reply given to notice issued u/s 8 of IBC - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal appears to have been swayed only by a submission made by the Respondent that the Appellant has failed to give the proof of the delivery of goods. There is no discussion in the entire Judgement as to whether the goods were actually taken by the Respondent in its own trucks as stated by the Appellant because it is alleged by the Appellant that the Respondent lifted the goods from the Port to its Plant. Furthermore, various other evidence which may prove the transactions having been taken place between the Parties have not been discussed at all by the Learned Tribunal much less the fact that if no contest is made till the filing of the Petition, whether it can be raised for the first time in the Reply filed to the Application under Section 9 is also a question which requires to be answered.
This is one such case in which interference is required for the purpose of looking into the entire evidence by the Tribunal and recording a finding thereafter as to whether the Application has to succeed or to fail.
The Impugned Order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Learned Tribunal to decide the Application again after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1016
Possession of goods - lien of the Appellant on the goods as a bailee - waterfall mechanism - main plank of argument of the Appellant is Section 171 of the Act on the basis of which it is claimed that the Appellant should have been declared as a secured creditor and should have been included in the list of stakeholders for the purpose of distribution in terms of Section 53 of the Code - HELD THAT:- Section 3(30) of the Code defines secured creditor which means a creditor in favour of whom security interest is created. Section 3(31) deals with security interest which means right, title or interest or a claim to property, created in favour of, or provided for a secured creditor by a transaction which secures payment or performance of an obligation and includes mortgage, charge, hypothecation, assignment and encumbrance or any other agreement or arrangement securing payment or performance of any obligation of any person. Provided that security interest shall not include a performance guarantee. Section 3(4) deals with ‘charge’ means an interest or lien created on the property or asset of any person or any of its undertakings or both as the case may be as security and includes a mortgage.
The wharfingers as the Appellant claiming itself to be a security for a general balance of account any goods bailed to them whereas in the present case, the goods are not in possession of the Appellant which is also admitted by the Appellant during the course of hearing and thus there was no actual lien to invoke Section 171 of the Act.
There are no error committed by the Adjudicating Authority in passing the impugned order and as such the present appeal is found without merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1015
CIRP - Renewal of Bank Guarantee for customs duty exemption - Whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in concluding that the Customs Bank Guarantees are not essential for the ‘Going Concern’ nature of the Corporate Debtor Company? - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the MPP status is important since it provides an exemption of Customs Duty - there are force in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that since there are no goods being imported by KMPCL or its contractor, being SEPCO, from China during the CIRP of KMPCL, for the operationalisation of the units of KMPCL, there is no exemption which KMPCL can claim for customs duty liability and therefore, the Respondent has intimated the CoC that these renewals are not necessary for the ‘Going Concern’ nature of KMPCL.
A perusal of the Minutes of the Meetings dated 14.10.2020, 22.10.2020 and 19.09.2022 of the CoC evidence that the Respondent had informed the Appellants that the renewal of the Customs Bank Guarantees would only increase the financial burden of KMPCL which would have to bear the commission charges and renewal charges which are exorbitant amounts. It is also significant to mention that the Deputy Commissioner, Paradip Customs Division filed a claim dated 04.11.2019 with the IRP / RP of KMPCL stating that an amount of Rs. 7,19,98,48,660.49/- was payable by KMPCL as per the assessment Order.
When there is no guarantee with respect to the MPP status of the Non-Operational Units and since there are no goods being imported by the Corporate Debtor Company as it is undergoing CIRP, there is no exemption which the Company can claim for Customs Duty liability and we are of the earnest view that the Corporate Debtor Company need not be burdened with the Commission and renewal charges approximately amounting to Rs. 70 Crores which would only increase the financial burden of the Corporate Debtor Company with no positive benefits accruing. Under Section 25(1), the RP is empowered to reject the CoC proposal for renewal of the Bank Guarantees provided by the Corporate Debtor Company, prior to the initiation of the CIRP as renewing those would not consequently lead to any advantage or any valuable gains.
There are no substantial grounds to interfere with the well-considered order of the Adjudicating Authority - appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1014
Dismissal of application under Section 7 of IBC, for the resolution on the ground of limitation - the order was upheld by this Tribunal but the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order of this Tribunal and remanded the appeal back to this Tribunal and restored the same, permitting the financial creditors (Bank) to file an application to amend Section 7 application - HELD THAT:- The fact remains that while allowing the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has remanded the appeal and restored the same to this Tribunal and permitted the present Respondent (FC) to make amendment in the application filed under Section 7 of the Code. It is no where mentioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the application had to be filed before the Adjudicating Authority. Since, the matter was pending before the Adjudicating Authority at that time, after restoration of the appeal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the application has rightly been filed before this Tribunal for seeking amendment in Section 7 application.
In so far as, the allegation of the Applicant that some application was also filed before the Adjudicating Authority for amendment, firstly, it was only a memo and secondly, no proceedings were pending at that time before the Adjudicating Authority, therefore, the application has rightly been filed before this Tribunal where the proceedings were pending and there is no error in the statement made by Counsel which has been recorded in the order dated 11.01.2022 which is sought to be labelled as fraudulent.
As a matter of fact, the application under Section 7 was admitted on 05.06.2023 which was further challenged by the present applicant by way of an appeal i.e. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 184 of 2023 and dismissed with a detailed order on 16.10.2023, therefore, the only recourse available to the Appellant is to challenge the order dated 16.10.2023 by way of further appeal but in so far as the recalling application is concerned, it is totally misconceived and the same is thus hereby dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1012
Admissibility of Section 7 application - date of default in the Section 7 Application - bar u/s Section 10A of IBC - right of Debenture Holders to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the Code - competency of Facility Acceleration Notice.
Whether the Application filed by the Financial Creditors under Section 7 of the Code was hit by Section 10A of the Code? - HELD THAT:- The Law is well settled that no application for initiating proceedings under Section 7 can be initiated for default which is committed during Section 10A period - It is well settled that when default is committed during Section 10A period and subsequent to Section 10A period, application is fully maintainable for any default subsequent to Section 10A period - The Application under Section 7 being filed for default which was on basis of default occurred subsequent to Section 10A period, it is opined that application was not hit by Section 10A.
Whether the Debenture Holders have right to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the Code? - HELD THAT:- It is already noticed that Altico i.e. majority Debenture Holder has already initiated Section 7 proceeding hence all Debenture Holders were unanimous in their view to proceed against the Corporate Debtor and this Tribunal upheld the initiation of proceeding against the Corporate Debtor by the Financial Creditors.
Whether the Facility Acceleration Notice dated 30th May, 2021/31st May, 2021 was incompetent and not in accordance with Debenture Trust Deed dated 19th March, 2018? - In event, Facility Acceleration Notice dated 30th May, 2021/31st May, 2021 is held to be not in accordance with Debenture Trust Deed, whether the Application under Section 7 deserves to be dismissed? - Whether the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority admitting Section 7 Application needs interference in this Appeal? - HELD THAT:- From the facts and sequence of events as noticed, it is clear that the facility acceleration notice issued by the Debenture Holders cannot be said to be in accordance with the Debenture Trust Deed. The notice was not issued by Debenture Trustee and issued by Debenture Holders - having held that Facility Acceleration Notice was not issued in accordance with the terms and conditions of Debenture Trust Deed, the next question to be considered is as to whether after the aforesaid holding whether the Section 7 Application deserves dismissal.
While noticing the clauses of Debenture Trust Deed, it is noticed that Debenture Trustee has to initiate proceeding after occurrence of event of default in pursuance of the approved instructions by the Debenture Holders has to be obtained in meeting with fifty percent vote share as per the clauses of Debenture Trust Deed as noticed above. The Financial Creditors who have filed Section 7 Application were minority debenture holders having only 29.8 percent. Majority Debenture Holder is the Altico Capital. In the Reply which has been filed by the Financial Creditors it has been pleaded that Altico the majority NCDs holder had already initiated proceeding under Section 7 of the Code against the Corporate Debtor - The fact remains that majority Debenture Holder having already initiated Section 7 Proceeding, all debenture holders are unanimous in their actions to proceed against the corporate debtor for the defaults committed. It is already held while considering Question no. i that application under Section 7 was not hit by section 10A since the application under Section 7 was not confined to the default committed during Section 10A period rather the Application was filed on the basis of date of default dated 01st June, 2021 consequent to Facility Acceleration Notice dated 30th May, 2021 and 31st May, 2021 as well as other defaults as explained in Section 7 Application.
If 1st June, 2021 is not taken as date of default, the default on the payment of interest after end of the 10A period i.e. after 24th March, 2021 there is clear default on the payment of interest and payment of default in the interest of both the Financial Creditors is more than Rs. 1 Crore which is threshold amount for filing of the Application under Section 7 - The tabular chart given in Exhibit K contains the details of interest accrued interest paid and interest outstanding even if we take period after 10A period i.e. period from 31st March, 2021 as mentioned in the tabular chart total overdue interest after 10A period is much more than threshold amount of Rs.1 Crore. Details of overdue interest has been captured in the tabular form in exhibit K - The date of default in payment of interest after there are several date of default in payment of interest after Section 10A period which is captured in the tabular form filed as Exhibit K in Part-IV of the Application, Financial Creditors have also filed the working for computation of the amount and days of default in tabular form thus the date of default cannot be confined only to date 1st June, 2021 as mentioned in Part-IV. The date of default which is mentioned in the tabular form cannot be ignored it is clear that there was default of more than Rs.1 Crore i.e. threshold period in payment of default by the Corporate Debtor after Section 10A period.
The above default is very much there even if the default is ignored on the basis of Facility Acceleration Notice dated 30th May, 2021/31st May, 2021 - even after Section 10A period there being default in payment of interest which was more than threshold amount, the Application under Section 7 deserves to be admitted - the order of the Adjudicating Authority admitting Section 7 Application need no interference in this Appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 961
Auction sale under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 - legitimacy of the transaction resulting from sale of the subject property through auction - Sale concluded while commencing the resolution process - HELD THAT:- The Liquidator (now representing the Corporate Debtor in liquidation), the erstwhile Director/Promoter of the Corporate Debtor as also the Bank does not dispute the factual position that the sale stood concluded before declaration of moratorium. No reason was cited to demonstrate as to why the sale certificate would be held illegal. No case has been made out on behalf of the respondents about any defect or default in forwarding the sale certificate in terms of Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908. On the other hand, all the three respondents have concurred at the time of hearing on the point that the sale stood concluded.
The present appeal shall stand allowed to the extent the properties in question are concerned. These properties cannot be treated to be liquidation assets of the Corporate Debtor for the purpose of further steps to be taken in the liquidation proceeding. The impugned order is set aside.
-
2023 (12) TMI 960
Validity of Direction to the Resolution Professional to immediately handover the management of the Corporate Debtor to the CEO/Management of the Corporate Debtor - Power of NCLT where CIRP has been stayed - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that the Appeal filed by Mr. Navin Kumar Upadhyay- Respondent No.1 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the order dated 16.12.2021 of this Tribunal is already pending. It is open for the Respondent No.1 herein who is Appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to pray such order as may be advised - it is also noticed that after the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 25.02.2022 staying the CIRP, Resolution Professional has also filed an application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking certain directions and clarifications which application was directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be heard along with the hearing of the appeal which application is still pending and no order has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. When the Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court filed by the Respondent No.1 is still pending, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have stayed his hands to issue any direction to hand over the management of the Corporate Debtor to the ex-management and the Adjudicating Authority ought to have relegated to parties to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court for any further order or direction.
It is for the Resolution Professional to take decision in its wisdom as to how the Corporate Debtor should be allowed to continue as a going concern without taking any steps in the CIRP, in view of the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 25.02.2022. Respondent No.1 virtually seeks his reinstatement of the post which is clear from the prayer made in IA No.4138-4139 of 2023 which has not been entertained in this Appeal and the Adjudicating Authority also ought to have stayed his hands from passing any order on the application filed by the parties which relates to CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.
The Adjudicating Authority committed error in passing the order dated 30.05.2023. Application IA No.2403 of 2023 filed by Respondent No.1 as well as Application IA No.964 of 2023 filed by Resolution Professional before the Adjudicating Authority ought not to have entertained due to pendency of the Civil Appeal No.2662 of 2022 filed by the Respondent No.1 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The order dated 30.05.2023 passed in IA No.2403 of 2023 and IA No.964 of 2023 set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 959
Validity of Resolution Plan - classification as made in Resolution Plan between payment to employees, is discriminatory and violative of provisions of Section 30, sub- section (2) of the Code or not - issuance of directions for redetermination of the CIRP cost by the CoC - withholding payment of CIRP cost to the Appellant, which payment was directed subject to appropriation towards amount found recoverable from such promoters/ KMPs in avoidance application, violative of Section 30, sub-section (2) of the Code or not - issuance of direction to CoC to pursue the avoidance application pending for adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority.
Whether there is any discrimination in Resolution Plan in making payments to employees of the Corporate Debtor differently from those whose dues are upto Rs.10 lakhs and those whose dues are more than Rs.10 lakhs? - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the Appellant that amount proposed to the Operational Creditor in the category of employees is less than the amount, which they would have received in event of liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. Hence, there are no error in the distinction of payment as contained in paragraph 3.3.2 of the Resolution Plan. The distribution to the employees, whose liquidation value was ‘NIL’ falls within the commercial wisdom of the CoC and the said clause of Resolution Plan cannot be impugned on the said ground, nor the said proposal for payment is violative of Section 30, sub-section (2) (b) of the Code.
Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in issuing directions for redetermination of the CIRP cost by the CoC? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it has not been shown that CIRP cost, which has been determined by the Resolution Professional for running the business of the Corporate Debtor was required approval of CoC under Section 28 of the Code. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order in paragraph 6.2 has held that CoC shall be competent to determine the quantum of CIRP cost payable under the Plan. When the Plan has been approved by the CoC, which included payment of the CIRP cost and it is not shown that CIRP cost determined by the Resolution Professional required any approval under Section 28, there are no reason for redetermination of the CIRP cost by the CoC. The direction to CoC to redetermine the CIRP cost after approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC is unsustainable - The audited Report was obtained by Resolution Professional to satisfy himself and to obtain a confirmation of his determination of the CIRP cost by an Auditor, which having been done, no further approval of the CoC was required for payment of CIRP Cost - the directions issued by the Adjudicating Authority empowering the CoC to redetermine CIRP cost deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside.
Whether the direction of Adjudicating Authority to withhold the payment of CIRP cost to the Appellant, which payment was directed subject to appropriation towards amount found recoverable from such promoters/ KMPs in avoidance application, is violative of Section 30, sub-section (2) of the Code and unsustainable? - HELD THAT:- The determination of CIRP cost and payment of CIRP cost to those who found entitled to receive the payments is an independent process from any recovery from Promoters/ KMPs, consequent to avoidance application filed by Resolution Professional under the provisions of the Code, including Section 66 of the Code. The directions, which were issued by the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 6.5 was to withhold the claim of Promoters/ KMPs, falling for adjudication and before releasing the amount payable to such Promoters/ KMPs amount was directed to be detained and was made subject to appropriation towards amount found recoverable from such Promoters/ KMPs towards CIRP cost - The avoidance applications, which are pending before the Adjudicating Authority may also be expeditiously considered and decided, so as to not withhold the receipt of the payment by such Promoters/ KMPs for a long period.
Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in issuing direction to CoC to pursue the avoidance application pending for adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority? - HELD THAT:- After approval of the Resolution Plan, the Adjudicating Authority is fully empowered to issue any direction, as to how the avoidance applications has to be pursued and direction to pursue the avoidance applications by the CoC as issued therein is fully justifiable and does not warrant any interference at the instance of the Appellant.
Appeal allowed in part.
............
|
9911796707
