9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e PIL before the High Court. However, it is evident that this course of action need not be followed for the simple reason that the PIL was a complete abuse of process. The IBC provides forums and remedies. In the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Section 60(5), MCGM has moved the NCLT contending that the land in question which is situated at Mumbai cannot be included as a part of the assets of the Corporate Debtor. Since the application is pending before the NCLT, no opinion to be expressed on it. The provisions of the IBC were invoked for initiating the CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor. The first respondent who had evidently no locus in the proceedings chose to move a PIL ostensibly on the ground that he was seeking to sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rma, Adv., Ms. Moulshree, Adv., Mr. Krishan Singhal, Adv., Mr. Sandip Patil, Adv., Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv., Ms. Namisha Chadha, Adv., M/s. J.S. Wad Co. R-4 Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shubhabrata Chakraborti, Adv., Ms. Sharmistha Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Jinal Shah, Adv., Ms. Palak Nenwani, Adv., Mr. Hafeez Patanwala, Adv., M/s. Juris Corp. ORDER 1 Leave granted. 2 This appeal arises from the orders of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 16 February 2023 as clarified on 2 March 2023. 3 On 12 July 2004, Sevenhills Healthcare Private Limited SHPL was put into possession of land belonging to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai MCGM , situated at Survey Nos 155 (pt), 156 (pt), 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the NCLAT before this Court in Civil Appeal 6350 of 2019 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs Abhilash Lal and Others . 8 By its judgment dated 15 November 2019, this Court allowed the appeal and set aside both the order of the NCLAT and the approval granted to the Resolution Plan on the ground that the prior approval of MCGM was necessary under Sections 92 and 92-A of the MMC Act before the Resolution Plan could be approved. This Court held thus: In the opinion of this Court, Section 238 cannot be read as overriding MCGM's right indeed its public duty to control and regulate how its properties are to be dealt with. That exists in Sections 92 and 92-A of the MMC Act. This Court is of the opinion that Section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m time to time. MCGM has utilized the hospital at Mumbai as a dedicated Covid-19 treatment facility. 10 On 6 January 2023, the appellant issued Form G and an Invitation of Expression of Interest IEOI . At that stage, the first respondent instituted a Public Interest Litigation PIL before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking suspension of the CIRP and quashing of the IEOI. An order was passed by the High Court on 9 February 2023 issuing notice. The appellant and the CoC filed preliminary affidavits in reply challenging the maintainability of the PIL and the locus of the first respondent. MCGM has also filed a reply. 11 The High Court by its order dated 16 February 2023, posted the case on 23 February 2023 and directed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proved without the consent of MCGM, in view of the Sections 92 and 92-A of the MMC Act; (ii) there is a finding of fact that no lease agreement was entered into by MCGM in favour of SHPL; and (iii) hence according to MCGM, the property cannot be included as part of the assets of the Corporate Debtor. 17 Dr Sujay Kantawala, counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent has, on the other hand, submitted that the purpose of the first respondent in instituting the PIL before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was to ensure that the hospital which has been a valuable facility for the residents of Mumbai especially during Covid-19 times is duly safeguarded. 18 The narrow issue which falls for consideration before this Court is whether t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that MCGM had in the meeting of the CoC expressly agreed to support the CIRP. We clarify that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the submission, nor shall this order be treated as an acceptance of the submission on behalf of MCGM. 21 Since the limited ambit of these proceedings relates to the recourse which was taken to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by the first respondent, we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the rights and contentions of the parties in the proceedings which are pending before the NCLT. The judgment of this Court dated 15 November 2019 lays down the governing principles in that regard. MCGM would be at liberty to pursue its application under Section 60(5). We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
