9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orporate Debtors. Principle of Judicial Discipline is to be adhered to by all to ensure hierarchical discipline and for proper dispensation of justice but as noticed above in the present case, there is no breach of any judicial discipline by the NCLT as claimed by the Appellants. There was no Interim Order of the High Court restraining the NCLT to proceed with the concerned applications or not to pronounce any Judgment when the matter was heard and reserved for order even prior to passing of the Interim Order of the High Court. Further the Interim Order of the High Court directed to maintain status quo by both the parties i.e. Bank and the Corporate Debtors that cannot be read as any restraint to the NCLT. No error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in admitting Section 7 Applications against the Corporate Debtors - Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1003 of 2019 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1004 of 2019 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1005 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2022 - [ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson , [ Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy ] Member ( Judicial ) And [ Mr. Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor for settlement under OTS . All the three Corporate Debtors submitted and prayed for One Time Settlement with the Bank in March, 2018. There was correspondence between all the three Companies with the Bank. The Bank sanctioned the OTS of Rs. 60 Crore by Letter dated 27.12.2018. Bank subsequently wrote on 29th June, 2019 to all the three Companies that deposit of only 6.79 Crore has been made whereas amount due till July, 2019 is 16.50 Crores as per OTS. Corporate Debtors were asked to deposit the amount within the stipulated time failing which OTS was to be treated as failed. By letter dated 31st July, 2019, Bank wrote to Corporate Debtors that OTS has failed. The Adjudicating Authority proceeded to consider Section 7 Application. The One Time Settlement was noticed. It was found that the Corporate Debtor failed to comply with the terms and conditions of OTS Proposal. Adjudicating Authority heard the parties and by Order passed on 23rd August, 2019 admitted all the three Company Petitions and initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and appointed Interim Resolution Professional as proposed by the Financial Creditor-the Bank. Aggrieved by the Order dated 23rd A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court vide its Order dated 19th August, 2019 directed the parties to maintain status-quo till 26th August, 2019 which Interim Order was continued by Order dated 26th August, 2019 in which subsequent Order dated 16.09.2019 was passed disposing of the Writ Petition while continuing the Interim Order for two weeks to enable the Writ Petitioner to avail the Appellate Remedy. It is submitted that in view of the Status Quo Order passed by the High Court, the Adjudicating Authority could not have admitted the Section 7 Applications. The Adjudicating Authority ought to have maintained judicial discipline in not proceeding further in Section 7 Applications. 7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties have perused the record. 8. We may first notice the submission of the Appellants based on OTS. Prayer for OTS was made by the Corporate Debtors in March, 2018. After some correspondence the Bank vide Letter dated 27.12.2018 approved the OTS for amount of Rs. 60 Crores with regard to all the three companies. Bank vide letter dated 29th June, 2019 communicated that amount as per OTS Approval is not being paid, in event due amount is not paid, OTS to be tre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before the Gauhati High Court has been brought on record along with convenience compilation filed by the Appellant. In the Writ Petition (C) No. 6029 of 2019, following prayers have been made: In the premises aforesaid it is most humble prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue notice upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the impugned letter dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure No. 14) shall not be set aside and quashed and on cause or causes being shown be further be pleased to stay the proceeding of Dairy No. 03(064) 2018 (Annexure No. 1) pending before the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Guwahati and/or pass such further Order/Orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper. -AND- And for this act of kindness, Your petitioners as in duty bound, shall every pray. 12. The Gauhati High Court passed an Interim Order in the Writ Petition on 19th August, 2019 which is to the following effect: Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. After hearing the arguments advanced by Mr. Choudhury, I am of the view that before passing any further order in the matter, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit Petition by hand to the Branch Manager of the FC and intimate him about the pendency of the writ petition and the next date of hearing. While ordering the said notice to the respondent bank in the above Writ Petition, the Hon ble High Court directed both the parties in the Writ Petition to maintain status quo. The said order does not contain any direction to this Tribunal in this regard. The CD is conscious of the fact that this Tribunal may pass final orders in all the matters of the group companies relating to the CD at any time after 20-08-2019. 14. Reasons were given by the Adjudicating Authority in refusing to stay the pronouncement of the Order. When the Adjudicating Authority has heard the Section 7 Application on 14th August, 2019 and reserved for Orders, Interim Order passed by Gauhati High Court thereafter on 19th August, 2019 could not have stopped the NCLT to pronounce the Order. There is one more aspect of the matter which need to be noticed i.e. the Order of the High Court dated 19th August, 2019 as noted above directed the parties to maintain status quo in the matter the direction was only to the parties, the High Court has not passed any order staying pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
