9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Authority') in C.P (IB) No. 250/KB/2021. 2. An application was filed by the SRF Ltd. i.e., Respondent No. 1 as an operational creditor being C.P (IB) No.250/KB/2021 under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 against the Corporate Debtor namely, Birla Tyres Ltd. (in short 'Corporate Debtor') which was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority through Impugned Order dated 05.05.2022 and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (in short "CIRP") was initiated. The respondent no. 2 has been appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional ("IRP") in respect of the affairs of the corporate debtor. 3. The Appellant herein is one of the shareholders of the corporate debtor and being aggrieved by the impugned order for initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor has filed the present appeal before this Appellate Tribunal. 4. Heard Counsel for the Parties and perusal the record made available. 5. The appellant is one of the shareholders of the corporate debtor. The appellant currently holds 1,40,00,063 number of equity shares in the Corporate Debtor which is equivalent to 9.82% of the paid-up equity share capital of the Corporate Debtor. 6. The Corporate Debtor has been, inter-alia, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that non-access of factory premises prevented the Corporate Debtor to file its reply affidavit in the application filed by the Respondent under Section 9 of the Code. The corporate debtor was taking steps to the best of its ability and was trying to arrive at an amicable solution but Impugned Order stopped all such processes. 11. The Appellant applied to the Adjudicating Authority who failed to appreciate the compelling circumstances which had caused the corporate debtor not to submit its reply affidavit and that there was no deliberate breach or disobedience on the part of the corporate debtor to disobey the order of the Adjudicating Authority and passed the Impugned Order which harmed interest of the Corporate Debtor as well as several investors including the Appellant. 12. The Appellant undertaking his pleadings, regulated to allow his appeal and set aside the Impugned Order. 13. Per Contra, the Respondents stated that all averments of the Appellants are baseless, mischievous and frivolous and appeal is only to derail the process of the CIRP. 14. The Respondents alleged that there was clear default on the part of the Corporate Debtor and it was not denied by the Corporate D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its reply affidavit. The Corporate Debtor chose to refrain from filing a reply affidavit or to bring on record the reasons for not filing the same. It is only after when the matter was heard and reserved for Orders by the Adjudicating Authority the Corporate Debtor decided to file a supplementary affidavit and the same was rightly not allowed by the Adjudicating Authority. 21. The Respondent No. 1 stated that the Appellant has no locus to prefer the instant appeal and therefore, the question of the Appellant being dissatisfied with the Impugned Order does not arise and on this ground alone, the appeal is to be dismissed. 22. The Respondents submitted that the Corporate Debtor was having all Information Technology back up including ERP System and all records were available at the Head Office of the Corporate Debtor and it was sheer wilful default of the Corporate Debtor that even Reply Affidavit was not filed despite several opportunities given to the Corporate Debtor by the Adjudicating Authority. 23. The Respondents stated that the Adjudicating Authority passed well reasoned speaking order and appeal deserves to be dismissed with cost. 24. At this stage, this Appellate Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly affidavit in this application. h) On 5 April, 2022, after considering the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor for grant of further extension of time this Adjudicating Authority not satisfied with the reasons stated, declined to grant further time and the matter after hearing Counsel for operational creditor was reserved for orders. i) No application/motion however has been filed before this Adjudicating Authority for seeking any further time. j) There is nothing shown to us the relevant record for filling reply was/is lying in the factory premises and the same situation as in September 2021 continues in April 2022. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances based on record, we are of the considered opinion that it was a very casual attempt made by the Corporate Debtor to seek further adjournment for the 4th time consecutively since October, 2021 and reference to agitation by workers and families in September, 2021 was merely an attempt by the Corporate Debtor to prolong the proceedings. Keeping in view, this matter under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 wherein the very object of the Code is to finalize the Insolvency proceedings in a time bound ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
