9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved Person, yet this Tribunal, is of the earnest opinion that the Resolution Applicant of RPPL, had taken over the Corporate Debtor (ofcourse with a clean slate), after Approval, of its Resolution Plan, by the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal, and in that perspective, the Petitioner/ Appellant, has No Locus Standi, to challenge the said Plan, or Corporate Insolvency and Resolution Process Proceedings of the Corporate Debtor. As such, the filing of an IA No.696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 325 of 2022, seeking Leave, to prefer the instant Appeal, before this Tribunal, cannot be sought for, with an inordinate and inexplicable delay, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal. It must be borne in mind, that when RISPL, itself, had no Rights, in the Properties, the aspect of any Rights, having been vested on the same, to and in favour of the Petitioner/ Appellant, by the Security, created by RISPL, will not arise. In any event, the Impugned Order, dated 30/05/2022 in IA(IBC)/400(CHE)/2021 in IBA/1099/2019, passed by the Adjudicating Authority / National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench II, Chennai, does not take away the Rights of Petitioner/ Appellant, in any ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , amounting to Rs.349.40 Crores. In fact, the `Original Lender , had subscribed to `OCDs , amounting to Rs.269.40 Crores and `L T Infra Investment Partners , had subscribed to `OCDs , amounting to Rs. 80 Crores. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant , brings it to the Notice of this Tribunal , that, the Facility / OCDs , are secured, inter alia, by Mortgage , over the ₹ 4th Respondent s Leasehold Rights , of the `Five Immovable Properties , along with the Plant and Machineries , owned by the ₹ 4th Respondent and the Corporate Guarantee , excluded by the 1st Respondent. Indeed, the aforesaid Debt and `Security , were assigned by the `Original Lender , to the Petitioner / Appellant , through a `Registered Deed of Assignment , dated 12.03.2021 and as visualised, under `Section 5 (1) (b) of the SARFAESI ACT, 2002 . 5. Advancing his Argument , the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant , points out that the 1st Respondent / Petitioner , had projected an IA(IBC)/400(CHE)/2021, in IBA/1099/2019, before the Adjudicating Authority / National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench II, Chennai (under Section 49 r/w Section 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Leave , to the Petitioner / Appellant , to prefer the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 325 of 2022, before this Tribunal , in furtherance `Substantial Cause of Justice . 11. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant , relies on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in `Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai, Advocate General of Maharashtra, Bombay , reported in 1970 (2) SCC Page 484 at Spl Page 489, wherein, at Paragraphs 6 and 7, it is observed as under: 6. The expression `person aggrieved' is not new, nor has it occurred for the first time in the Advocates Act. In fact it occurs in several Indian Acts and in British Statutes for more than a hundred years. In the latter a right of appeal to a `person aggrieved' is conferred in diverse contexts. It occurs in the Ale House Act, the Bankruptcy Acts, Copyright Act, Highway Act, Licensing Acts, Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Act, Rating and Valuation Act, Summary Jurisdiction Act, Union Committee Act, Local Acts, in certiorari proceedings and the Defence of Realm Regulations to mention only a few. The list of Indian Acts is equally long. 7. As a result of the frequent use of this rather ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viso to Section 31(2), becomes a person aggrieved under Section 28-A(1) of the Act, when the owner of the another land covered by the same notification is awarded higher compensation by the Civil Court on a reference got made by him under Section 18. 13. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant , refers to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in `Shobha Suresh Jumani v. Appellate Tribunal, Forfeited Property Anr. , reported in (2001) 5 SCC 755 at Spl Pg: 756, wherein, at Paragraphs 5 and 9, it is observed as under: 5. The words `any aggrieved person , are found in several statutes. However, the meaning of the expression `aggrieved may vary according to the context of the enactment in which it appears and all the circumstances. 9. From the scheme of the Act, it is clear that `any person aggrieved , by an order of the competent authority would mean a person whose property is held to be illegally acquired under the Act and which is to be forfeited or whose legal rights qua the said property are adversely affected. A relative or associate who has no interest or right in such property cannot be held to be a person aggrieved. It is true that the wife ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner / Appellant (the `Controlling Stakeholder ), in the `Committee of Creditors of `RISPL , is a gross abuse of the process of `Law , as it cannot be the case of the Petitioner / Appellant , that it is canvassing any case, different from that of RISPL , in its Appeal . 18. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Petitioner , takes a prime plea that the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 325 of 2022, is filed by the Petitioner / Appellant , with an intent to indulge in Plurality of Proceedings , and thus `bog down RPPL , to try and somehow, stall its progress, post `Successful Resolution . 19. At this Juncture, the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Petitioner , projects an argument, that the Transactions , set out in the IA(IBC)/400(CHE)/2021, had defrauded the `Financial Creditors , whose `Security , was destroyed. 20. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent, contends that the Resolution Application of `RPPL , had taken over the Corporate Debtor , with a clean slate, after approval of their Resolution Plan , by the Adjudicating Authority , and therefore the Petitioner / Appellant , has No Locus , to assail the said Pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , does not take away the Rights of Petitioner / Appellant , in any manner. 25. In the light of foregoing upshot, this `Tribunal , on a careful consideration of the divergent contentions advanced on either side, all the more, when RISPL , itself , had no rights in the Properties in question, any Rights , having been vested on the same, to and in favour of the Petitioner / Appellant , by Security , created by RISPL , does not arise, bearing in mind, a crystalline fact that the Rights of the Petitioner / Appellant , are not taken away, by means of the Impugned Order , dated 30/05/2022, in IA(IBC)/400(CHE)/2021 in IBA/1099/2019 (on the File of the Adjudicating Authority / National Company Law Tribunal , Division Bench II, Chennai), comes to a consequent conclusion, that the IA No. 696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 325 of 2022, preferred by the `Petitioner / Appellant , (seeking `Leave to prefer the instant `Appeal ), is `Ex facie , not `maintainable , and it fails. Conclusion: In fine, the IA No. 696 of 2022 (`Praying for Leave , to prefer the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 325 of 2022), filed by the `Petitioner / Appellant , i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
