9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Clause 9.2.1 of the sub-paragraph 20 of the order, cannot be accepted.
The Adjudicating Authority while approving the Resolution Plan or issuing direction contained in paragraphs 18 and 9.2.1 has to be treated not to have expressed any opinion with regard to renewal of the leases, which is in the domain of State of West Bengal. Only liberty to pursue the application was granted and the question of granting renewal is in the domain of the State Government. The Adjudicating Authority has not made any observation with regard to grant or non-grant of renewal of leases. It is clarified that directions of the Adjudicating Authority has to be treated, limited to right to pursue the renewal application/ make an application for renewal and the Adjudicating Authority has not have expressed any opinion on the merits of renewal application, which is in the domain of State Government.
Conclusion - i) Only stakeholders with a direct interest in the CIRP have the standing to challenge the Resolution Plan. ii) It is also clarified that the SRA could pursue lease renewals as a successor to the CD, without affecting the state's authority over lease decisions.
Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment of this Tribunal dated 02.08.2024. This Tribunal held that the leases with regard to three Tea Gardens namely - Kilcott, Garganda and Bagracott-I, were current on the day when CIRP commenced and leases with regard to other Tea Gardens having expired by efflux of time, only three Tea Gardens with regard to whom leases are continuing are the assets of the CD and the RP could take possession only of those Tea Gardens, which are the assets of the CD. This Tribunal vide order dated 02.08.2024 disposed of the Appeal. In paragraphs 120 and 121, following was directed: "Question No.9 120. In view of the foregoing discussions and conclusions, we held that leasehold rights of the Corporate Debtor subsist in three Tea Gardens, namely - Garganda, Kilcott and Bagracote, where the lease has been renewed and valid as follows: Sl. No. Tea Estate Valid upto 1. Garganda 08.09.2026 2. Kilcot 23.08.2025 3. Bagarcote Div.I 22.05.2028 121. The orders rejecting the IAs of RP insofar as the aforesaid three Tea Gardens are concerned are unsustainable and deserve to be set aside. In view of the above, all the Appeal(s) are disposed of in following manner: I. Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion IA No.IA (IB) No.237/(KB)/2022 filed by the RP for approval of Resolution Plan submitted by Successful Resolution Applicant ("SRA") was heard. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 18.10.2024 approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Uniglobal Papers Pvt. Ltd., which was approved by 99.20% vote shares of the CoC. vii. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2189 of 2024 has been filed by Merico Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Sammelan Tea and Baverages Pvt. Ltd. challenging order dated 18.10.2024. In the Appeal, following prayers have been made by the Appellants: "a) Set aside the impugned order dated 18 October, 2024 passed by the learned National Company Law Tribunal Kolkata Bench in IA (IB) No. 237/ (KB) /2022 in CP(IB) No. 184/( KB)/2018; b) Leave be granted to the appellant to serve a copy of the instant appeal on the respondent; c) Stay of operation of the order dated 18 October, 2024 passed by the Learned National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in IA (IB) No. 237/ (KB) /2022 In CP(IB) No. 184/( KB)/2018; d) Ad-interim order in terms of prayers above; e) Costs of and incidental to this petition be caused in the cause; f) Such further and/or other order/or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he SRA to pursue application for renewal of leases, which stood determined by efflux of time, much prior to the commencement of CIRP. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that Appellants have no grievance on the approval of the Resolution Plan except the above direction, which needs to be set aside. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the RP opposing the submission of the Appellant contends that Appellant has no locus to challenge the approval of Resolution Plan. The Appellant was not a stakeholder in the CIRP of the CD and the SRA, whose Resolution Plan has been approved is fully entitled to pursue renewal applications, which have been filed for renewal of the leases and the directions issued by Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order, do not call for any interference. It is further submitted that the Appellant has filed Appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging order dated 02.08.2024 passed by this Tribunal, which Appeals have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22.11.2024 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the Appeals has held that Appellant has no locus-standi to file Appeal against the order of this Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the RP ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was not granted. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has also referred to the Report of the Tea Board and submits that Tea Board has also noticed that the Appellant is running the Tea Garden Marybong and has incurred expenses. 10. The submissions of the Appellant have been opposed by both the learned Counsel for the RP and the SRA. Same submissions have been advanced by the RP and SRA, which we have noticed on their behalf in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2189 of 2024 (above), hence, need no repetition. 11. As noted above, in the above Appeal(s), the Appellants are only aggrieved by part of the order. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2189 of 2024, although in the prayers, the Appellant has prayed for setting aside the order approving the Resolution Plan, whereas its main grievance is reflected in paragraph 7(xl), which is as follows: "7(xl). The appellants are accordingly aggrieved by the order impugned passed by the learned NCLT granting the relief sought by the SRA in clause 9.2.1 of the resolution plan by granting the SRA leave to make fresh applications or pursue any pending application seeking renewal of the remaining tea gardens, the lease of which granted to the corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in their terms, be deemed to continue without disruption for the benefit of the Corporate Debtor for a period of 96 months and till such time, the Resolution Applicant will apply for fresh licenses. Whatever the immunity is, it is granted strictly under Section 32A of the I&B Code. Granted in accordance with law to the extant permissible. For the Tea Gardens, where the Lease period has expired, it is open for SRA to make application to the Lessor or if renewal application has already been made, pursue the same." 13. As noted above, the Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2189 of 2024 has also claimed to be in possession with regard to Tea Gardens, which are not held to be assets of the CD. The Appellant - Nagri Farm Tea Co. Ltd. claims possession of Marybong from 01.01.2024, which was also not held to be the assets of the CD. The grievance, which has been advanced by the Appellant with regard to order of the Adjudicating Authority, where the Adjudicating Authority observed: "For the Tea Gardens, where the Lease period has expired, it is open for SRA to make application to the Lessor or if renewal application has already been made, pursue the same." 14. When we lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
