9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n taken to the Resolution Plan . The Appellant has no vested fundamental right to challenge the plan approved by the Committee of Creditors - appeal dismissed being not maintainable. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 524 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 16-12-2019 - Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya Chairperson, Justice A.I.S. Cheema Member (Judicial) And Kanthi Narahari Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Sibal and Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Senior Advocates with Mr. Raghav Shankar, Mr. Sevanshu Saylav, Mr. Sudip Mahapatra, Mr. Shahezad Kazi, Ms. Misha Chandra, Ms. Adity Agarwal, Mr. Arshiya Sharda, Mr. Saksham Dhingra, Mr. Sohan Kumar, Mr. Eklavya Dwivedi and Mr. Aubert Sebastian, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Abhinav Vashisht, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Mr. Nakul Sachdeva and Mr. Aakarshan Sahay, Advocates., Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dinakar Maheshwari, Mr. Rajeev Vidhani, Mr. Himanshu Vidhani and Ms. Pratiksha Mishra, Advocates. JUDGMENT SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. ArcelorMittal India Private Limited (Appellant) is one of the Reso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant if the contracts are cancelled as proposed in the plan. Therefore, there is no certainty in the realization of any of the amounts. It was noted that the offer made was significantly lower than the liquidation value determined for the Resolution Applicant. In the light of the object of Code being to maximise the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor, the plan was rejected on account of the plan not satisfactory achieving the same. 6. Learned counsel for 3rd Respondent-( Successful Resolution Applicant ) submitted that the plan submitted by 3rd Respondent has been duly approved by the Committee of Creditors with majority voting shares of 73.14%. The Adjudicating Authority finally heard the matter and reserved the Judgment on 9th September, 2019. 7. It was submitted that the appeal under Section 61, in absence of any approval of plan by the Adjudicating Authority is not maintainable. 8. It was also informed that the Competition Commission of India has also given its approval of the plan subsequently. 9. In Arcelormittal India Private Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta Ors.─ (2019) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Authority under Section 61, and may further be challenged before the Supreme Court under Section 62, if there is a question of law arising out of such order, within the time specified in Section 62. Section 64 also makes it clear that the timelines that are to be adhered to by the NCLT and NCLAT are of great importance, and that reasons must be recorded by either the NCLT or NCLAT if the matter is not disposed of within the time limit specified. Section 60(5), when it speaks of the NCLT having jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of any application or proceeding by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person, does not invest the NCLT with the jurisdiction to interfere at an applicant s behest at a stage before the quasi-judicial determination made by the Adjudicating Authority. The non-obstante clause in Section 60(5) is designed for a different purpose: to ensure that the NCLT alone has jurisdiction when it comes to applications and proceedings by or against a corporate debtor covered by the Code, making it clear that no other forum has jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of such applications or proceedings. 10. It is clear and apparent from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or identical or substitutable service, if- (i) the enterprise over which control has been acquired along with the enterprise over which the acquirer already has direct or indirect control jointly have,- (A) either in India, the assets of the value of more than rupees one thousand crores or turnover more than rupees three thousand crores; or (B) [in India or outside India, in aggregate, the assets of the value of more than five hundred million US dollars, including at least rupees five hundred crores in India, or turnover more than fifteen hundred million US dollars, including at least rupees fifteen hundred crores in India; or] (ii) the group, to which enterprise whose control has been acquired, or is being acquired, would belong after the acquisition, jointly have or would jointly have,- (A) either in India, the assets of the value of more than rupees four thou sand crores or turnover more than rupees twelve thousand crores or (B) [in India or outside India, in aggregate, the assets of the value of more than two billion US dollars, including at least rupees five hundr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, in the audited books of account of the enterprise, in the financial year immediately preceding the financial year in which the date of proposed merger falls, as reduced by any depreciation, and the value of assets shall include the brand value, value of goodwill, or value of copyright, patent, permitted use, collective mark, registered proprietor, registered trade mark, registered user, homonymous geographical indication, geographical indications, design or layout- design or similar other commercial rights, if any, referred to in sub-section (5) of section 3. 12. From the said provision, it is clear that in all such combinations which do not come within the meaning of Section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002, there is no need of obtaining any approval of the Competition Commission of India under Section 6(2) by issuing notice on it. 13. As per Section 54 of the Competition Act, 2002, the power of the Central Government to exempt by notification from the application of the Act including Section 6(2). In fact, the Central Government from its Ministry of Corporate Affairs by Notification dated 27th March, 2017, in exercise of the powers conferred b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
