9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bankruptcy Code 2016 ('I.B.C.' for short) and Rule 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority), Rules 2016, filed by Roofit Industries Ltd., before the National Company Law Tribunal on 21.05.2017 for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution process was admitted vide order dated 28.06.2017 and applicant was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional. It is further contended that the Management of Corporate debtor (i.e. Roofit Industries Ltd.) now vests with the Interim Resolution Professional and power of Board of Directors or partners, as the case may be, stands suspended, and officers and Managers are required to report him and provide access to records & documents of Corporate debtor. 3. It is submitted that duties of the Interim Resolution Professional, which are laid down under sections 17 and 18 of the I.B.C., include collection of all financial information relating to the Corporate debtor, receipt and collection of debt claims, constitution of a committee of creditors, taking control and monitoring assets of the corporate debtor and filing the information with an information utility, if required. It is further submitted that pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and made with mala fide intention. They prayed for rejection of application. 8. Economic offences Wing (E.O.W.) Unit VII, Mumbai filed reply at Exh.136/R-1 and opposed the application. EOW submitted that offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 3,4 of the MPID Act were registered vide M.E.R.C. No. 01/2003, against directors of Roofit Industries Ltd., pursuant to complaints of fraudulent default in return of deposits to investors and in all 36 immovable properties of the Company have been attached vide Notification dated 06.05.2016. It further submitted that Government of Maharashtra has appointed Deputy Collector (Encroachment Removal), Dharavi, Mumbai as the Competent Authority and work of valuation of the properties is in progress. According to it, total number of investors is about 55,000 and value of their investment is about 72 Crores. 9. Competent Authority (C.A.) also opposed the application by filing reply as per Exh. 136/R-2. It made similar submissions as that of E.O.W. 10. Auto Investment Pvt Ltd., which has filed objection Exh. u/s.7 of the MPID Act in respect of Room No. 501, on 5th floor of Sangli Bank Bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arth Ceramics and grave irreparable loss, damage, harm and injury will be caused to it, if these properties are handed over to applicant/intervener. 14. Adv. Mehraj Mutawalli representing some of the investors filed reply at Exh.136/R-12 and opposed the application on the ground that MPID Act, is a self contained code for protection of interest and welfare of depositors and this Court being the Designated Court has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 15. Applicant/Intervener filed his reply to the objection of Auto Investments Pvt Ltd., at Exh.136-R/7. He submitted that his request for handing over the property bearing no.501 situated at 5th floor, Sangali Bank Building, Fort, Mumbai listed at Sr. No.2 of the Notification may be deleted from his application. 16. Applicant/Intervener filed his reply to the objection of Velhari Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., at Exh.136-R/ 8. He submitted that his request for handing over the property bearing no.502 situated at 5th floor, Sangali Bank Building, Fort, Mumbai listed at Sr. No.2 of the Notification may be deleted from his application. 17. Applicant/Intervener filed his reply to the objection of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that in all 25,000 investors have been duped of Rs. 72 Crores. Shri Malankar further argued that offence pertains to year 2003 and competent authority is already appointed by notification published in year 2016. Shri Malankar contended that provisions of sec.14 of the MPID Act gives overriding effect to the provisions of this Act. Shri Malankar submitted that judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court relied on by the applicant is not applicable to the case at hand. He prayed for rejection of application. 23. After clarification by the applicant as regards his claim of attached properties, as mentioned herein before, Ld. Advocates appearing for objector M/s Auto Investment Pvt Ltd., Velhari Trading Company Pvt Ltd., HDFC Bank Ltd and Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, had nothing to say about the prayers made in present application. 24. Order dtd.28.06.2017 passed by NCLT, Mumbai in C.P.No.1055/1 and BP/NCLT./Mah/2017 is annexed with the application. By virtue of said order, petition filed by Roofit Industries Ltd., u/sec. 10 of I.B.C. r/w relevant rules was admitted and present applicant was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional to carry out the functions mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d MPID Act and to distribute the sale proceed of the company in liquidation among the investors. 126. .....In my view, the claims of such investors/depositors cannot be considered in isolation and cannot be given priority over the secured creditors, the dues of the workman and preferential creditors contemplated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.' 28. In view of the above mentioned judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, this Court cannot pass further orders under the MPID Act, in respect of the attached properties belonging to Roofit Industries. 29. Initially applicant claimed properties listed at Sr. No.2, 8,20,9,10,11,12,16,17,18,19 and 23 of the notification dtd.06.05.2016. Subsequently, he waived the claim in respect of properties at St. No.2,9 and 11 of the notification. API Shri Mule of EOW Unit 7, Mumbai filed a list-Exh. 136/R-13, of assets belonging to Roofit Company. In all 13 immovable properties alongwith cash of Rs. 40 Lakhs are stated to be belonging to Roofit Industries. 30. In the facts and circumstances of the particular case in my opinion, judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in M/s. City Limouzines (India) Ltd. (in liq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
