9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by one or other attempts by corporate debtor and other applicants as noted above. It is further noticed that the case of the corporate debtor as noticed from the record, it is clear that the RERA registration of the project has already cancelled and there is a dispute of title as claimed by the corporate debtor regarding the land. There are no substance in the submission of the counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 to accepts the submission that Section 7 application be further not proceeded with till application under Section 230 of the Companies Act filed by Respondent No.6 be finalised. Section 7 application has to be proceeded and decided in accordance with law and in the facts of the present case, Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the Intervention Petition - there are no error in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. - [ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson , [ Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) And [ Arun Baroka ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anmol Joshi, Mr. Anant Bajpai, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Sahil Sethi, Mr. Samriddh Bindal and Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocates for R-1to3. Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missing the appeal filed by Corporate Debtors, three Civil Appeals being Civil Appeal No.7950-7951 of 2023, Civil Appeal No.7989 of 2023 and Civil Appeal No.7958-7959 of 2023 were filed which were dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.12.2023. After dismissal of all the three appeals filed by the Corporate Debtors, an IA No. 3875 of 2023 was filed by M/s. Disire Retail Pvt. Ltd. and others claiming to be unit holders in the project and praying for dismissal of the main Company Petition, which IA No.3875 of 2023 was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on 25.07.2023. Subsequent to the order dated 25.07.2023, Corporate Debtors filed three separate applications to dismiss the main Company Petition making allegation against the financial creditors. All the three applications filed by Corporate Debtors were dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on 05.01.2024. Adjudicating Authority while dismissing the applications held that the applicants (Corporate Debtors) is attempting to drag on the proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority refrained the applicant (corporate debtor) from filing frivolous applications in future so as to avoid imposition of cost. 2.3. Against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icial to the scheme which has now been proposed. 5. Shri Sahil Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who have filed Section 7 application has opposed the submissions of counsel for the appellant and submits that the filing of the intervention petition by the appellant is another attempt to delay disposal of Section 7 application. It is submitted that the corporate debtor from the very beginning has been filing one after another applications making efforts to derail the CIRP process and for the last more than 2 years they have not permitted Section 7 application to proceed on merits. It is submitted that the application that Section 7 is not maintainable has already been dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority which order has been affirmed upto the Hon ble Supreme Court. In the second round again, application was filed by the corporate debtor for rejecting Section 7 application which too was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority, upheld upto the Hon ble Supreme Court. One set of the homebuyers which had earlier filed application was also rejected on 25.07.2023 and intervention application no. 12 of 2024 is nothing but another attempt to derail the CIRP. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.10.2021. Application was filed against three corporate debtors who are now Respondent Nos.4, 5 6 in the present appeal. Three corporate debtors filed separate application objecting the maintainability of Section 7 application. Adjudicating Authority heard the said application and by detailed order dated 21.10.2022 objections were overruled and it was held that Section 7 application is maintainable. Corporate Debtor filed three appeals challenging the said order before this Tribunal which appeals were heard and dismissed by this Tribunal on 17.11.2023. Against the order dated 17.11.2023, appeals were filed by Respondent Nos. 4, 5 6 which appeals were again dismissed by the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court dated 11.12.2023. It is useful to notice the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, which is as follows:- 1 The impugned order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dated 17 November 2023 is admittedly only at the stage where the maintainability of the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 was questioned. The application under Section 7 is still awaiting a hearing on merits, though it is common ground that nearly two years have gon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding 4 units in the Project and (4) M/s Veena Gases and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. holding 9 units in the Project. The Counsel for the Applicants has submitted that the Applicants are necessary and proper party to the present proceedings, as the outcome of the present petition shall have direct bearing on the interest of the Applicants. The Ld. Counsel for the Applicants have submitted that all the Applicants together have invested an amount, in excess of 21.5 crore in the project of the Corporate Debtor. It is clear from the submissions of the Counsel that the Applicants are strategic investors in the project, who will ultimately sell the units to interested buyers. The Section 7 Petitioners are allottees of the units. The Applicants in their application has sought for dismissal of the present Section 7 application and also such other and further reliefs. We have also considered the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants. Having considered the stage of the matter and keeping the objects of IBC in view and as the preamble clearly says that timely resolution of CIRP process is one of the prime objects of the Code, the present application by the strategic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23, IA No. 4121 of 2023 and IA No. 4122 of 2023 in the Company Petition again praying that company petition be dismissed. In the applications various grounds including the ground that the Financial Creditor had committed fraud/forgery was raised which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority by order dated 05.01.2024. The Adjudicating Authority has extracted certain part of the order dated 05.01.2024 in paragraph 11 of the impugned order. It is useful to extract paragraph 11 of the judgment of the Adjudicating Authority which is as follows:- 11. Subsequently, the Corporate Debtor (CD) filed three separate applications to dismiss the main Company Petition, alleging that the Financial Debtor had committed fraud/forgery. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed all three applications vide order dated 05.01.2024. This Adjudicating Authority while dismissing the applications held as follows : 10. In light of the above, we find no merit in the present Application filed for dismissal of IB- 682/PB/2021 which a Section 7 Application. The present Application appears to be misleading, filed only for the purpose of delaying the adjudication of IB682/PB/2021. The applicant has failed to apprecia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ragraph 22 of the judgment, following has been observed:- 22. In view of the foregoing discussions and conclusions, we are of the view that Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting IAs filed by the Appellant praying for various reliefs as extracted above. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that the intention of the Appellant is malfide and objections are only to delay the adjudication of Section 7 Application. We do not find any error in the impugned order, as no ground is made out to interfere with the order, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. The order dated 29.01.2024 was further challenged before the Hon ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No.5018 of 2024 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.04.2024. 13. Counsel for the Appellant submits that even though Section 7 application has not yet been admitted, it has every right to intervene and there is no prohibition in the scheme of the IBC from not entertaining any intervention application before admission of Section 7 application. Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1008, 1009 1010 of 2021- Krrish Real ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions, hence he cannot claim that any prejudice is cause to him only because objectors have been given time to file objection. The objectors who have appeared before the Adjudicating Authority have huge stakes since they are all homebuyers/ allottees and have paid substantial amount to the Appellant running in lakhs and crores. No exception can be taken to their anxiety to ensure that pre-packaged insolvency resolution process is resorted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law. They have come up before the Court only to protect their claims and point out the Court about the non-compliance of the statutory provisions and it is for the Adjudicating Authority to consider the objections and take decision on merit. Before we close, we reiterate our observations that any observations made by us in this judgment are only for the purpose of considering as to whether Adjudicating Authority has committed any error in granting time to the intervenors/ objectors to file objection. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the claim of any of the objectors and it is for the Adjudicating Authority to consider and ultimately take a decision as to whether App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to clarify various aspects. The petition under Section 230 for scheme by the corporate debtor is independent proceeding but filing of the said petition cannot be a ground to not permit the proceeding under Section 7 which are being halted and obstructed by one or other attempts by corporate debtor and other applicants as noted above. It is further noticed that the case of the corporate debtor as noticed from the record, it is clear that the RERA registration of the project has already cancelled and there is a dispute of title as claimed by the corporate debtor regarding the land. We, thus, do not find any substance in the submission of the counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 to accepts the submission that Section 7 application be further not proceeded with till application under Section 230 of the Companies Act filed by Respondent No.6 be finalised. 17. From sequence of the events as noted above and especially the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court dated 11.12.2023, it is clear that Section 7 application has to be proceeded and decided in accordance with law and in the facts of the present case, Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the Intervention Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
