9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days, which is nothing but un-tenable contention/allegation made for the reasons best known to him. It (sic) goes without saying that the Respondent is under legal obligation to extend his co-operation. Seeking restraint on Respondent from leaving the Country - HELD THAT:- The presence of Respondent is not required before the Adjudicating Authority, but may be required before Arbitral Authorities. And Arbitral Authorities, by law have judicial powers to ensure witness in the case pending before them. It is relevant to point out here that proceedings pending here are only liquidation proceedings, wherein presence of Respondent is not required. It is for the Applicant to initiate Criminal proceedings against the Respondent, if circumstances so warrant and thus seek appropriate relief which include to prohibit the Respondent to leave the Country. Application dismissed. - I.A. Nos. 288 and 289 of 2020 in C.P. (IB) No. 154/BB/2017 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2020 - Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, Member (J) And Ashutosh Chandra, Member (T) For Appellant: T. Ravichandran, Senior Counsel and A. Murali ORDER Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, Member (J) 1. I.A. Nos. 288 289 of 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or of the Corporate Debtor, and was fully in charge of the day to day administration of the Corporate Debtor. Pursuant to the Liquidation, the Respondent has been cooperating with him. Further, there are as many as 23 Arbitration proceedings pending before various Arbitral Tribunals/High Court. There are certain counter claims as well. The Arbitration proceedings filed against MSCDCL before the Retd. Justice Anoop Mohtha stands posted for hearing on 24.08.2020. And the Respondent has filed his affidavit and makes himself available for cross examination. The Respondent is not cooperating with the Applicant in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. The Respondent had attached a copy of the fight ticket issued by Air India which reveals that the Respondent is proposing to go to San Francisco. The Applicant apprehends that the Respondent might leave the country on 21.08.2020 and may not return. Needless to state that the presence of the Respondent is absolutely necessary in India for the next six months at least for completing arbitration matters. Further one more arbitration before a three Member Tribunal is fixed for deposition of the claimant's witness on 2nd and 3rd Septem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating Authority to entertain these Applications and to pass an order restraining the Respondent from leaving the jurisdiction of this Tribunal without its permission. He has also relied upon the judgements rendered in the following cases: 1) Union Bank of India u/s Gammon India Limited in CP (IB) No. 1939 (MB)/2018, passed by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench 2) NUI Pulp and Paper Industries Private Limited versus M/s. Roxcel Tranding GMBH passed in C.A. (AT) (Insolvency) No. 664 of 2019 by the Hon'ble NCLAT, New Delhi on 17.07.2019 3) Amandeep Singh Bhatia and other versus Vitol S.A. and another in CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 502 of 2018 passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT, new Delhi on 30.08.2018. 5. Shri A. Murali, Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, has denied the allegations made in the Applications, and also filed a Memo dated 09.09.2020 of Respondent, which reads as under: I, K. Venkateshwara Rao, residing at 20 21, 10th Cross, West Park Road, Bangalore - 560003, do hereby state that I was the former Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor, Deepak Cables (India) Limited. The aforesaid applications have been filed by the Applicant, who is the liq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus argued the case on merits. 7. There are two issues raised in the instant Applications viz., to direct the Respondent to extend co-operation to him, and secondly, to restrain the Respondent from leaving the Country. 8. So far as the first issue is concerned, it is necessary to advert to the action taken by the Applicant, after his appointment as Liquidator. The Applicant is not an IRP/RP, he was subsequently appointed as Liquidator by an order dated 04.07.2019 passed in I.A. No 270 of 2019; wherein he was directed to take expedite steps to conclude the Liquidation process. Subsequently several miscellaneous Applications were filed in the instant case viz., I.A. No. 347 of 2019 filed by M/s. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited, I.A. No. 424 of 2019 filed M/s. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL), I.A. No. 523 of 2019 filed by Professional Tax Officer, I.A. No. 593 of 2019 filed by Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, I.A. No. 690 of 2019 filed by Mr. Rajagopala Pillai and I.A. No. 697 of 2019 filed by Deputy Commissioner of State Tax. And all these Applications were promptly disposed of by the Adjudicating Authority. Though the Appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevancy of judgments cited on behalf of Applicant is concerned, the facts and circumstances in those cases are not relevant to the facts and circumstances as available in the instant case. So far as the order dated 08.01.2019 passed in CP (IB) No. 1939 (MB)/2018 is concerned, since Criminal proceedings are initiated against the Directors, the Tribunal, as a precaution, has directed the Directors therein as not to leave the Country without proper permission of Concerned Authorities. It is not the case of the Applicant that the Respondent is facing any criminal case. So far as the order dated 17.07.2019 passed in the case of NUI Pulp and Paper Industries Private Limited in CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 664 of 2019 is concerned, the substantial issue with regard to inherent powers of Adjudicating Authority. The prayer asked by the Applicant in the instant case is not consequential relief of the Liquidation Process, it is substantial relief, which normally comes under Criminal jurisdiction, and it cannot come under definition of inherent powers. Similarly, the order passed in Amandeep Singh Bhatia and others in C.A. (AT) (Insolvency) No. 502 of 2018 would not applicable to the instant ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
