9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... creditors of JSW Steel Ltd. were paid on 26.03.2021 - it is clear that if we were to reprise the resolution plan, it would result in burdening the petitioner with unexpected claims, and thus derail it from its path to recovery. Petition allowed. - W.P.(C) 7248/2020 and CM APPL. 24458/2020 - - - Dated:- 21-7-2022 - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Bose, Advocate. Respondents Through: Mr. Taha Yasin with Mr. Farman Ali, Advocates for respondent no.1/UOI. Mr. Aditya Singla, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Suryanshu Priyadarshi and Mr. Yatharth Singh, Advocates for respondents no.2 and 3. [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving regard to the fact that the issue stands covered in favour of the petitioner, it would be a complete waste of time and resources, both judicial and that of the petitioner, if at this stage, the petitioner is directed to take recourse to an alternate remedy. 6. We tend to agree with Mr Bose. In our view, it is well established that relegating a party to an alternate remedy is a limitation which the Court imposes upon itself, it does not fetter the powers of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. [ See Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 1998 (8) SCC 1.] 6.1 For the sake of convenience, the relevant paragraphs of Whirlpool are extracted hereunder: 14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Arti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial Ltd. Anr. [2001 (2) SCC 549] while dealing with the question of refund of money in a writ petition after discussing the earlier case law on this subject held : 12. In the para extracted above, in a similar situation as arising in the present cases relating to the very question of refund, while answering the said question affirmatively, this Court pointed out that the courts have made distinction between those cases where a claimant approached a High Court seeking relief of obtaining refund only and those where refund was sought as a consequential relief after striking down of the order of assessment, etc. In these cases also the claims made for refund in the writ petitions were consequent upon declaration of law made by this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... collection of tax/cess as unconstitutional or without the authority of law. It is one thing to say that the High Court has no power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of mandamus for making refund of the money illegally collected. It is yet another thing to say that such power can be exercised sparingly depending on facts and circumstances of each case. For instance, in the cases on hand where facts are not in dispute, collection of money as cess was itself without the authority of law; no case of undue enrichment was made out and the amount of cess was paid under protest; the writ petitions were filed within a reasonable time from the date of the declaration that the law under which tax/cess was collected was unconstitut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arding the merits of the matter. 8.1 Mr Singla confesses that the affidavit filed is limited to the aspect of the maintainability of the writ petition. It is Mr Singla s contention that the respondents/revenue have not taken any stand with regard to the merits of the matter. 9. Given the position of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra, Mr Singla cannot but accept Mr Bose s contention that the demand stands extinguished once a resolution plan is approved by the NCLT. 10. The facts obtaining in the present case show, that a public notice was issued on 28.07.2017. 10.1 The transactions in issue, qua which demand has been raised by the respondents/revenue concerns the Financial Year (FY) 2013-2014. 10.2. Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... debts/demands stand extinguished. The relevant observations made in the judgment are set forth hereafter: 102. In the result, we answer the questions framed by us as under : 102.1. That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under sub section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
