9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was passed on 24.01.2020 and the petition has been filed on 12.08.2023 and is clearly barred by limitation because the Petitioner was very well aware of the appointment of the PMC which was duly ratified in the second meeting of CoC held on 21.08.2020 and the Petitioner attended 3rd and 4th CoC meeting held on 10.09.2020 and 16.09.2020 subsequently. The case of the Petitioner is that he came to know about the appointment of the PMC somewhere in April, 2023 when the alleged promoters/directors of the PMC challenged the FIR registered against them before the Patna High Court and were not successful cannot be believed. Locus Standi - HELD THAT:- The decision in the case of Girish Mittal [ 2019 (4) TMI 1630 - SUPREME COURT ] is also of no help because in that case it was an order passed in rem which could have affected a person in the street, therefore, the contempt was filed because of the direction issued by the Hon ble Supreme Court were not followed but here is the case in which the direction issued was between the parties, therefore, it was a decision in personam. There is no contempt made out in this case because the order which was passed on 24.01.2020 was only to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en, electricity bills etc. 2. In brief, Corporation Bank (Financial Creditor) filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short Code ) for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Patna Highway Projects Ltd. which is stated to be a special purpose vehicle of Gammon Infrastructure Projects Ltd. The said application was admitted and CIRP was initiated. This order was challenged by way of an appeal by Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd., one of the Financial Creditor, in which the aforesaid order dated 24.01.2020 was passed. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent No. 1 (RP) has violated the order by appointing a project monitoring consultancy during the subsistence of the order i.e. in the month of June, 2020. However, it is a conceded fact that the CA (AT) (Ins) No. 131 of 2020 was withdrawn by the Appellant on 20.07.2020 with the following order:- Mr. Prateek Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks to withdraw the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated. 4. It is also submitted that the Respondent No. 2 created a WhatsApp gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2nd CoC meeting, which was held on 21.08.2020 in which resolution was passed for approval and ratification of the appointment and fee/expenses of PMC/Bid Advisors of the CD. The said resolution is reproduced as under:- RESOLVED FURTHER THAT pursuant to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 and other applicable provisions, if any, of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and in accordance with rules and regulations made there under, the fees of INR 21,00,000/- plus applicable taxes including out of pocket expenses to be paid to I value Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as the PMC/Bid Advisors of the Resolution Professional be and is hereby approved and ratified by the Committee of Creditors. 11. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is in the habit of filing frivolous petitions and even the appeal filed by the Petitioner earlier against the order by which the resolution plan was approved was dismissed by this Court. In this regard, he has referred to CA (AT) (Ins) No. 920 of 2022 which was filed against the order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Princip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt shall be construed as including a reference to the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal; and (b) the reference to Advocate-General in section 15 of the said Act shall be construed as a reference to such Law Officers as the Central Government may, specify in this behalf. 15. It is further submitted that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides the limitation for action for contempt which is also reproduced as under:- 20. Limitation for actions for contempt. No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. 16. In support of his argument, he has relied upon a decision of this Tribunal rendered in the case of Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. Vs. Srei Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vision India Pund, Successful Resolution Applicant Ors. Contempt Case (AT) No. 28 of 2021 in I.A. No. 953 of 2020 in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 553 of 2019 in which this Court has held that there is a embargo contained in Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to exercise contempt jurisdiction to take cognizance even in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebtor. He has then referred to Section 20(1) to contend that the interim resolution professional shall make every endeavour to protect and preserve the value of the property of the corporate debtor and manage the operations of the corporate debtor as a going concern. 18. In sum and substances, it is submitted that he has rather followed the order of this Court because he was to ensure that the company remains a going concern and in that process he had appointed the PMC which was later on ratified by the CoC in its own wisdom, therefore, it is submitted that there is no contempt committed by the Respondent No. 1 (RP) as well. 19. In rebuttal, Counsel for the Petitioner has reiterated the stand taken by him at the time when he argued the case in affirmative. 20. We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 21. It is well settled that the contempt is a serious matter because it causes both physical and fiscal punishment specially when the contempt has been alleged against a professional (RP). The Petitioner has to make out a full proof case about the wilful violation of the order passed by the Tribunal for the purpose of seeking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
