9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the question of legality of the appellate order would be nothing but an exercise in futility. By reason of provisions of the 2003 Repeal Act, a Company in respect of which any appeal or reference or enquiry stand abated, might make reference to the National Company Law Tribunal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, within 180 days from the commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. If, as contended by the petitioner, there is any infirmity in the order impugned by reason of the same being based on the action taken by the IDBI under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, which action was according to the petitioner illegal, the petitioner should have challenged the action under Section 17 and 18 of the SARFA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the petitioner. 4. On 14.12.2013, the petitioner submitted a Draft Rehabilitation Scheme to IDBI, which was examined by IDBI. After examining the Draft Rehabilitation Scheme, IDBI submitted the same to the BIFR. By an order dated 02.01.2014, BIFR directed IDBI to rectify the defects and deficiencies in the Draft Rehabilitation Scheme. 5. Thereafter, by a letter dated 08.05.2014, IDBI informed the BIFR that all the lenders had unanimously agreed that the Draft Rehabilitation Scheme was not acceptable. 6. Thereafter by an order dated 11.06.2014, BIFR directed the petitioner to settle the dues of its secured creditors and submit a report to IDBI, failing which BIFR would initiate action under the SICA. 7. On 30.10.2014 IDBI initi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BI filed a Miscellaneous Application being M.A. No.122/2015, seeking abatement of the reference in terms of the proviso to Section 15(1) of the SICA. 14. The petitioner submits that IDBI s documents filed before the BIFR and the AAIFR did not show that IDBI had authorisation of more than 3/4th of the total secured lenders of the petitioner, as per the mandate of Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. 15. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that M/s. Edelweiss ARC, which had acquired the debt of M/s Oriental Bank of Commerce representing 24.20% of the total secured debt had neither issued any notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, nor given its consent prior to 13.10.2014. 16. It was further stated that another secure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.10.2016 passed by the AAIFR in Appeal No.19/2015, for restoration of the reference of the petitioner being Case No.17/2012 before the BIFR and other consequential reliefs. 20. The writ petition was filed on 30.11.2016. In the meanwhile, a Gazette Notification No.2794 dated 28.11.2016 was issued, enforcing the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003 w.e.f. 01.12.2016. With the enforcement of the said Repeal Act of 2003, the AAIFR and BIFR stand dissolved, and all proceedings of whatever nature pending before the AAIFR or BIFR under the SICA stand abated. 21. Since AAIFR and BIFR stand dissolved and all proceedings stand abated w.e.f. 01.12.2016, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
