9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal No. 9664/2019 dated 15.03.2021, where it was held that it is clear that the Promoter, if ineligible under Section 29A Cannot make an application for Compromise and Arrangement for taking back the immovable property or actionable claims of the Corporate Debtor. Application dismissed. - (IB)-197(ND)2018 and IA 3879/2021 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2022 - Abni Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Member (J) And L.N. Gupta, Member (T) For the Appellant : Saurav Upadhyay, Piyush Singh, Akshay Srivastava, Rajat Katyal and Harsh Sinha, Advs. For the Respondents : Ahsan Ahmad, Arun Chadha and M.A. Inayati, Advocates. ORDER 1. IA 3879/2021: By filing this application, the Applicant has prayed for the following relief: Pass appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20 in CA-367/2019, the prayer of the Bajaj Finance Ltd. was rejected. 4. In reply to that, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that since the Scheme was submitted by the Applicant prior to the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 30th July, 2021, therefore, Section 29A(g) of IBC is not applicable. 5. Considering the submissions and the averments made in the application, we observe that the vide order dated 30th July, 2021, this Adjudicating Authority has found the ex-Promoters/ex-Directors guilty for the preferential transactions under Section 43 of the IBC, 2016 and passed the following order So far as the transaction of amount of ₹ 10,09,360 with Respondent No. 5 is concerned, we hold that it is a prefe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 15th May, 2018 and remit the case to Liquidator /Adjudicating Authority to proceed in terms of the decision of this Appellate Tribunal in Y. Shivam Prasad(supra). The Adjudicating Authority to proceed in terms of the decision of this Appellant Tribunal in Y. Shivam Prasad(supra). The Appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. No costs. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.03.2021 are as under: 70. An argument has also been advanced by the Appellants and the petitioners that attaching the ineligibilities under Section 29A and Section 35(1)(f) of the IBC to a scheme of compromise and arrangement under section 230 of the Act of 2013 would be violative of Articl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. 8. At this juncture, we also refer to Regulation 2(B)(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, which is quoted below: 2B. Compromise or arrangement. (1) Where a compromise or arrangement is proposed under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), it shall be completed within ninety days of the order of liquidation under sub-sections (1) and (4) of section 33.6 [Provided that a person, who is not eligible under the Code to submit a resolution plan for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor, shall not be a party in any manner to such compromise or arrangement.] (2) .... (3) .... (Emphasis provided) 9. Considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
