9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Liquidator to proceed in arbitration against the Concessionaire where claim on basis of wrongful invocation of guarantee is also included, the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in directing deletion of name of Respondent No. 1 in application under Section 66 of the Code. It is observed that after a decision by the Arbitrator in the arbitration proceeding to be filed by the Liquidator in event facts and findings come in the proceeding which may oblige the Liquidator to file an application under Section 66 against the Concessionaire, the liberty is granted to the Appellant and the deletion of name by the order impugned shall not come into way in filing a fresh application under Section 66 of the Code, if any such circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sues between the Corporate Debtor and the Concessionaire. On 14th June, 2017, Concessionaire terminated the agreement with the Corporate Debtor and invoked Bank Guarantees. iii. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was initiated against the Corporate Debtor at the instance of Oriental Bank of Commerce vide order dated 11.10.2018. The Appellant was appointed Liquidator in the Liquidation Proceedings of the Corporate Debtor vide Order dated 06.02.2020. iv. Forensic Audit Report was conducted in the Liquidation Proceedings of the Corporate Debtor. Liquidator on 07.09.2021 gave a notice of claim for additional cost on account of changes in the scope of work, price variation and prolongation of working due to the delay caused along with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be allowed to take two opposite pleas simultaneously hence the Adjudicating Authority directed deletion of Respondent No. 8 to the I.A. No. 1626 of 2022 from the array of the party. vii. Liquidator aggrieved by the Order dated 09.10.2023 passed in I.A. No. 1626 of 2022 has come up in this Appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the Liquidator submits that the invocation of bank guarantee by Concessionaire after termination of the agreement was wrongful and fraudulent hence the Liquidator has rightly impleaded the Concessionaire as Respondent No. 8 in the Application and the Adjudicating Authority committed error in deleting the Respondent No. 8 from Section 66 Application. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 opposing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ator may have against the concessionaire mentioned in detailed in different heads in paragraph 4.18 of the Application. In paragraph 4.8(i), compensation with regard to wrongful invocation of bank guarantee was also included. Paragraph 4.8(i) is as follows: (i) COMPENSATION FOR ILLEGAL TERMINATION OF THE EPC CONTRACT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FIRST AMENDMENT AGREEMENT WRONGFUL INVOCATION OF BANK GUARANTEES The claim pertains to the Compensation for illegal termination of the EPC Contract, Settlement Agreement First Amendment Agreement Wrongful Invocation of Bank Guarantees under which the Corporate Debtor has substantiated in detail the unilateral/wrongful/concocted/malfide and illegal termination of a series of contractual r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
