9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Abhindra Maheshwari, Mr. Akash Chaterjee, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Gunjan M., Mr. Karan Gandhi, Mr. Shivam Gautam, Advocates for R-1 (RP). Mr. Amar Vivek, Mr. Aditya Gauri and Mr. Abhishek Dua, Advocates. JUDGEMENT Ashok Bhushan, J. In these groups of appeals challenge is made to the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Prayagraj) in I.A. No. 243 of 2023 filed by Resolution Professional for approval of the Resolution Plan and I.A. No. 434 of 2023 filed by Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor praying for dismissal of I.A. No. 243 of 2023. 2. Committee of Creditors aggrieved by both the aforesaid orders have filed Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1637 of 2023 and Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1642 of 2023. The Successful Resolution Applicant Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Limited have challenged the aforesaid two orders by filing Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1640 of 2023 and Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1641 of 2023. 3. The Resolution Professional Mr. Vivek Raheja has filed Compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant in its 33rd CoC meeting held on 21.04.2023 was approved by 100% vote share. Resolution Professional filed an I.A. No. 243 of 2023 on 20.05.2023 before the Adjudicating Authority praying for approval of the resolution plan. Suspended Board of Director filed an application I.A. No. 365 of 2023 praying for impleadment in I.A. No. 243 of 2023 which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 17.08.2023. After dismissal of I.A. No. 365 of 2023 Suspended Board of Management filed another application being I.A. No. 434 of 2023 praying for following reliefs: "The relief sought in the present application are as under:- (i) Pass an Order whereby dismissing the Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No. 243 / ALD/2023 IN C.P. (IB) No. 342 / ALD / 2018 on the ground that the Resolution Plan is not tenable in the eyes of the law as the same is in the teeth of embargo imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 412/2012 in Civil Appeal No. 9813/2011; (ii) Pass an Order whereby holding that the Resolution Plan filed vide Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No. 243 / ALD / 2023 IN C.P. (IB) No. 342 / ALD / 2018 by the Resolution Professiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Hon'ble Supreme Court for seeking clarification in the context of order dated 21.11.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and order dated 27.08.2021 passed by this tribunal before commencing implementation of plan. The approval of the plan already ordered by us in I.A No. 243/2023 is subject to seeking the clarification from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid terms." 6. We have heard Sh. Abhijeet Sinha, Learned Counsel appearing for the Committee of Creditors, Sh. Krishnendu Datta, Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for Successful Resolution Applicant and Sh. Ritin Rai, Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for Resolution Professional. We have heard Sh. Arun Kathpalia, Learned Sr. Counsel and Sh. Anand Chibber appearing for Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor. Submissions advanced on behalf of the counsel for the appellant are being noticed cumulatively. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 21.11.2013 passed in Contempt Petition No. 412 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 9813 of 2011 restrained, only the Sahara group of companies from parting with any movable immovable properties until further orders. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Suspended Management Director has also reiterated the same submission and submits that order dated 27.08.2021 also obliged the Resolution Professional and CoC to file the application for clarification. 13. We have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the records. 14. The main issue to be answered in this appeal is as to whether there was any requirement of issuing direction by the Adjudicating Authority to the Resolution Professional and CoC to obtain clarification from the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to the order dated 21.11.2013 before implementing the plan. There is no dispute that resolution plan has been approved with 100% CoC and the same has also received approval by the Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order. 15. Before we proceed further we need to notice the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 21.11.2013 passed in Contempt Petition no. 412 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 9813 of 2011 S.E.B.I Vs. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is as follows: "We are convinced that the order dated 28.10.2013 passed by this Court has not been complied with in its letter and spirit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.08.2015 of the NCDRC passed against Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited in Consumer Complaint No. 47 of 2009 in accordance with law. I.A. No. 147 of 2016: In this application seeking intervention by the applicants, the applicant's precise grievance appears to be that Complaint Case No. CC/13/15 filed by him before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench, Nagpur is not being proceeded with on account of our Order dated 21.11.2013 in Contempt Petition No. 412 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 9813 of 2011. It is submitted by learned counsel for the intervenor that intervenor-applicant shall be satisfied in case it is clarified that the order passed by this Court on 21.11.2013, whereby this Court restrained the Sahara Group of Companies from alienating any property moveable or otherwise, does not prevent the concerned Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from proceeding with contempt case filed by the applicants and passing appropriate orders on the same. We see no reason to decline that prayer. We make it clear that our dated 21.11.2013 shall not prevent the concerned Disputes Redressal Commission from proceeding with and passing ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that matter is no longer in issue. 21. The order dated 27.08.2021 gave full liberty to the suspended management to file an application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for clarification or modification. The fact that no application for modification or clarification was filed by the Suspended Management makes it clear that they also are well aware that order dated 21.11.2013 cannot fetter the CIRP process or the resolution plan approval process. 22. Now coming to the observations in the paragraph 29 that CoC or the RP if they as are advised may also seek clarification, the above observation clearly meant that if CoC or Resolution Professional are advised only then they can make a clarification. CoC or Resolution Professional being of the opinion that no clarification is required order cannot be read to mean any direction to the CoC or RP to move an application for clarification. 23. In any view of the matter, we are of the view that order dated 21.11.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has no fetter in the CIRP process of the Corporate Debtor nor it can fetter the approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority which has been approved by 100% CoC. 24. We, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
