9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 2017. Notices were served on the Corporate Debtor as recorded by the Court on 15.01.2018. Application under Section 7 was heard on 30.01.2018 and order was pronounced on 09.03.2018. It is not permissible either the Corporate Debtor or any other stakeholders to contend that the order shall not become operative on 09.03.2018 when it was pronounced - It is the case of the Appellant that vide Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.04.2018 he has been allotted 20 units in lieu of the outstanding debt on account of legal services rendered to Corporate Debtor. When Section 7 petition already admitted on 09.03.2018 and Moratorium has kicked in, there was no authority in the Corporate Debtor to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with regard to its property and assets. Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 966 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 7-1-2021 - [Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson, [Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial) And [Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Amar Dave, Mr. Akhil Shankwar and Mr. Satish Rai, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Nipun Gautam, Advocate (RP-R1) Mr. Kashi Vishwanathan Sivaraman (RP-R1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating Authority who by order dated 16.08.2021 has rejected the said Application. Aggrieved by the said order, this Appeal has been filed. 2. Shri Amar Dave, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Application filed by the Appellant for carrying out amendments in his earlier Application has wrongly been rejected. It is submitted that the Appellant although had earlier filed his claim as Operational Creditor but in view of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.04.2018, he had become allottee and was Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor and his claim ought to have been verified as Financial Creditor. He further submitted that although Application under Section 7 was admitted on 09.03.2018 but the said order was uploaded only on 22.06.2018. The copy of order was neither sent to Interim Resolution Professional nor to any of the parties. Hence, no one knew about the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process proceedings till 22.06.2018. It is submitted that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.04.2018 thus cannot be said to be violating Section 14 of the I B Code . It is submitted that in the present case, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel for the Appellant and have perused the record. 5. One of the issues which has arisen for consideration in this Appeal is as to whether the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority becomes operative from the date it is pronounced or the order become operative only when it is uploaded on the website. From the fact which has been brought on record, it is clear that the order dated 09.03.2018 was pronounced by the Adjudicating Authority, which was duly shown in the cause list for the date 09.03.2018 at Item No. 1 under the heading pronouncement of the order . 6. It is also apparent from the record that the order was uploaded on the website on 22.06.2018 which fact has been noticed in the subsequent order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 30.07.2018. The fact that order has not been uploaded till 22.06.2018 whether it shall be treated to have taken away the implementation of the order dated 09.03.2018, is the question to be answered. 7. Before we answer the above question, it is relevant to notice that the Application under Section 7 was filed in the year 2017 in which notice was issued to the Corporate Debtor on 20.11.2017. Notices were served. Despite service of no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ointed as Interim Resolution Professional. The order also directed a Moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the I B Code . We are not persuaded by the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the order did not become effective on 09.03.2018 since it was admittedly uploaded on 22.06.2018 on the website. In the order dated 30.07.2018, the Adjudicating Authority has noticed the fact that the order was not uploaded till 22.06.2018. The Adjudicating Authority has also observed that it appears that there is some negligence on the part of the court staff who had failed to take appropriate steps. Following observation has been made in the order dated 30.07.2018: The applicant s petition was admitted on 09.03.2018. However since the same was not uploaded till 22nd June of 2018 and therefore subsequent steps could not be taken. It appears that there was negligence on the part of the Court staff who had failed to take appropriate steps .. 11. Section 13 of the I B Code requires the Adjudicating Authority, after admission of the Application under Section 7 or 9, by an order to declare a Moratorium for the purposes referred to in Section 14. The order dated 09.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Operational Creditor to Financial Creditor on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.04.2018 along with Apartment Buyer Agreement. It is the case of the Appellant that vide Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.04.2018 he has been allotted 20 units in lieu of the outstanding debt on account of legal services rendered to Corporate Debtor. When Section 7 petition already admitted on 09.03.2018 and Moratorium has kicked in, there was no authority in the Corporate Debtor to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with regard to its property and assets. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.04.2018 is wholly void and inoperative and the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the Application of the Appellant seeking amendment in its earlier Application for incorporating his claim on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.04.2018. 13. Shri Amar Dave, Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also submitted that his earlier claim which has been directed to be considered on the strength of the order dated 26.07.2021 in I.A No. 1442/2020 may not be prejudiced by rejection of his Application I.A No. 445 of 2021. When the Adjudicating Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
