9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicating Authority noted that in the three CIRPs Resolution Plans were received only in the matter of LCL and none was received in the other two CIRPs. It was also noticed that in the Resolution Plans submitted with regard to the LCL, the Applicants wanted pre-condition that entire group debt with respect to LCL group of Companies should be extinguished instead of stand-alone debt of LCL. There is no dispute that LCL has about 49 subsidiaries or joint-ventures. There are no error in the Impugned Order consolidating the three CIRPs. The subsidiary DCCL appears to have been created for running the Convention Centre and it does appear to be linked with the business of Respondent No. 2-LCL with annual rent of token Re. 1. The Appellant who is only an Operational Creditor of DCCL is trying to find fault with the consolidation Order the object of which is Resolution of the Companies while the Appellant appears to be more concerned that its money as Operational Creditor should be protected. Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal ( AT ) ( Insolvency ) No. 783 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2021 - [ Justice A.I.S. Cheema ] Member ( Judicial ) And [ Dr. Alok Srivastava ] Member ( Technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a substantially applied to Respondent No. 2-LCL and its group companies and for reasons recorded in the Impugned Order directed consolidation of the three CIRP proceedings into one under the Resolution Professional of LCL 4. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. The Appellant-Operational Creditor of DCCL claims that majority decision of CoC of DCCL which was comprising only of the Operational Creditors were against the consolidation of the CIRP of DCCL with CIRP of Respondent No. 2-LCL. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to the Written-Submissions filed by her vide Diary No. 25454 to submit that the Resolution Professional of Respondent No. 2 had in the CIRP of Respondent No. 2-LCL taken over the DCCL disregarding the CIRP pending in the matter relating to DCCL by claiming that the Lease Agreement between Respondent No. 2 and DCCLwas not registered and was unstamped. It is claimed that it violated Section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC in short) in the CIRP ofDCCL. The Convention Centre Dasve Convention Centre was in possession of the Resolution Professional of DCCL but still the Resolution Professional of Respondent No. 2-LC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt part of Paragraph 33 reads as under: 33. The CoC of DCCL has resolved that they are willing to support consolidation if they receive their entire claim amount. Otherwise they are confident that there will be enough Resolution Applicants interested in the convention Centre on a standalone basis. On the contrary they feel that in consolidation the Centre may not get the right value and it will be nowhere near the lease premium of ₹ 100 Crs as indicated in the lease agreement. The view is that for the 10 year unexpired period of lease the Centre could fetch conservatively ₹ 40 Crs to ₹ 50 Crs as lease premium which could easily cover the entire claim of ₹ 21.33 Crs received by the Resolution Professional of DCCL 8. The Learned Counsel submitted that the written-submissions show that CoC of DCCLwhich had only Operational Creditors was merely interested in getting back their entire claims rather than resolution of the company which had gone into the CIRP and that aim of CIRP is resolution for the Company rather than recovery of money. 9. Perusal of the Impugned Order shows that keeping the yardsticks laid down in the Judgment in the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the un-registered lease DCCL could not have any business or revenue stream or any resolution on stand-alone asset. In Paragraph 18.1, the Adjudicating Authority observed as under: 18.1 It appears form the facts mentioned above that lack of consolidation of the CIRPs of these Corporate Debtors viz. WAML and DCCL which are already under Insolvency and Resolution of the Debt of WPSL and DRL can only happen along with the LCL, who is the Corporate Debtor and owner of the Township. Any stand-alone Resolution does not seem to be possible and would therefore defeat the objective of the Code, which is to maximize the value of the Corporate Debtor. In case of DRL and WPSL, Resolution of its Debt is directly linked to the Resolution of LCL. The Debt of DRL and WPSL on a stand-alone basis can never happen and only when it is consolidated with LCL, that Resolution may happen. However, this Bench is aware that DRL and WPSL is not undergoing Insolvency. Thus, inter-linkagesand synergies between the Companies to keep LCL as a running Township was found. After examining the yardsticks in the matter of State Bank of India Versus Videocon, the Impugned Order shows that the Adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
