9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 443 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyGrant of stay on the reconstituted 'Committee of Creditors' as notified by the 'Resolution Professional' - appellant challenged the impugned order on the ground that the Mahal Hotel Private Limited is not a 'Financial Creditor' and there were proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 initiated against it - HELD THAT - There is a dispute as to whether Mahal Hotel Private Limited comes within the meaning of 'Financial Creditor' or not, we hold that after constitution of the 'Committee of Creditors', without its permission, the 'Resolution Professional' was not competent to entertain more applications after three months to include one or other person as 'Financial Creditor'. Further, once a decision was taken by the 'Committee of Creditors' to call for a meeting for removal of Mr. Koteswara Rao Karuchola as an 'Resolution Professional', it was improper for him to include Mahal Hotel Private Limited as 'Financial Creditor' of the Member of the 'Committee of Creditors'. Further, money laundering case having been initiated against Mahal Hotel Private Limited, the said Hotel cannot be allowed to be the Member of the 'Committee of Creditors' - The Adjudicating Authority has failed to notice the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without going into the question of delay in inclusion of Mahal Hotel Private Limited as 'Financial Creditor', has decided the claim, though a petition was filed by Mahal Hotel Private Limited for the directions in its favour. Application allowed.
Issues involved:
1. Challenge to the impugned order regarding the inclusion of Mahal Hotel Private Limited as a 'Financial Creditor'. 2. Dispute over the allowance of compound interest to Mahal Hotel Private Limited. 3. Allegations of intentional inclusion of Mahal Hotel Private Limited by the Resolution Professional to manipulate the Committee of Creditors. 4. Money laundering allegations against Mahal Hotel Private Limited and its impact on its membership in the Committee of Creditors. 5. Competence of the Resolution Professional to entertain applications to include new Financial Creditors after the constitution of the Committee of Creditors without its permission. Issue 1: Challenge to the inclusion of Mahal Hotel Private Limited as a 'Financial Creditor' The Appellant, ARCIL, challenged the impugned order on the grounds that Mahal Hotel Private Limited was not a 'Financial Creditor' and that there were ongoing proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against it. The Appellant argued that the inclusion of Mahal Hotel Private Limited was intentional and aimed at influencing the voting share of the Committee of Creditors in favor of the Resolution Professional. The Appellant contended that the claimed amount by Mahal Hotel Private Limited did not qualify as a 'Financial Debt' under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, as it was forfeited by the Corporate Debtor due to Mahal Hotel Private Limited's failure to fulfill the Business Transfer Agreement. Issue 2: Dispute over compound interest Mahal Hotel Private Limited also challenged the impugned order on the grounds that compound interest was not allowed in its favor by the Adjudicating Authority. The Authority directed the Resolution Professional to revise the claim submitted by Mahal Hotel Private Limited by calculating interest on the outstanding balance at 24% per annum and then assess the voting share of Mahal Hotel Private Limited and its associates. This dispute highlighted the financial aspects of the insolvency resolution process and the treatment of interest on outstanding balances. Issue 3: Allegations of manipulation by the Resolution Professional The Appellant alleged that the Resolution Professional intentionally included Mahal Hotel Private Limited as a Financial Creditor to secure support and prevent his removal by the Committee of Creditors. It was argued that this inclusion was made with the ulterior motive of maintaining his position and influence within the insolvency resolution process. The Appellant raised concerns about the ethical conduct and intentions of the Resolution Professional in managing the affairs of the Corporate Debtor. Issue 4: Money laundering allegations and its impact on Committee of Creditors membership The Enforcement Directorate had initiated money laundering proceedings against Mahal Hotel Private Limited, raising questions about its eligibility to be a member of the Committee of Creditors. The Appellant emphasized that involvement in money laundering activities should disqualify Mahal Hotel Private Limited from participating in the insolvency resolution process and influencing crucial decisions regarding the Corporate Debtor's financial restructuring. Issue 5: Competence of the Resolution Professional The Tribunal addressed the competence of the Resolution Professional to entertain applications to include new Financial Creditors after the constitution of the Committee of Creditors without its permission. It was emphasized that such actions could impact the integrity and transparency of the insolvency resolution process and raise concerns about the Resolution Professional's adherence to the prescribed procedures and regulations. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, highlighting the disputes regarding the inclusion of Mahal Hotel Private Limited as a Financial Creditor, the allowance of compound interest, allegations of manipulation by the Resolution Professional, money laundering allegations, and the Resolution Professional's competence. The Tribunal emphasized the need for transparency, adherence to legal provisions, and ethical conduct in insolvency resolution processes, ensuring the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in accordance with the law.
|
