9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding this appeal are: (i) The Corporate Debtor - Sarga Udaipur Hotels & Resorts Private Limited entered into a loan agreement with Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited (HUDCO) for an amount of Rs.6907.92 Lakhs. Under the loan agreement, the Respondent No.1 was empowered to appoint a Nominee Director in the Board of the Corporate Debtor. One Dr. Alok Kumar Joshi was appointed by Respondent No.1 as Nominee Director of the Corporate Debtor. (ii) The Corporate Debtor - Sarga Udaipur Hotels & Resorts Private Limited filed an application under Section 10 of the I&B Code. CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced by order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority on Section 10 application filed by the Corporate Debtor itself. (iii) Respondent No.1 - HUDCO filed a claim in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor for an amount of Rs.23,82,02,414/-. The Resolution Professional admitted an amount of Rs.20,60,55,675/-. (iv) The Respondent No.1 claimed that Respondent No.1 is also entitled to be member of the CoC of the Corporate Debtor. There are only four creditors of the Corporate Debtor viz (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port of the HUDCO being suppressed from the Adjudicating Authority, order dated 30.08.2023 was obtained by playing fraud on the Court, hence, said order deserve to be recalled. The Adjudicating Authority committed error in rejecting I.A. filed by the Appellant for recall of the order. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent - HUDCO refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the issue as to whether HUDCO is a related party of the Corporate Debtor or not has been examined threadbare by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No.514/KB/2022 and the Adjudicating Authority had after considering all submissions made on behalf of the Resolution Professional for treating the HUDCO as related party has rejected the submission and had held that HUDCO is not a related party of the Corporate Debtor. The application filed by the Appellant, who is Promoter of the Corporate Debtor is nothing but an application to review the judgment dated 30.08.2023 which order was passed after considering all submission and all materials on the record. Appellant admittedly is related party of the Corporate Debtor. No grounds have been made out to recall order dated 30.08.2023 and the Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made in I.A. No.693/KB/2024 are as follows: "a) Invoke its inherent powers as vested under Rule 11 of National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, and Re-call the Order dated 30th August 2023 passed in I.A.(IBC) No. 514/KB/2022 arising out of C.P.(IB) No. 202/KB/2021 and direct exclusion of the Respondent No. 1 from the CoC of the Corporate Debtor; b) Pass/issue necessary order and/or orders directing the Respondent No.2/Interim Resolution Professional to restart Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor from the stage of constitution of Committee of Creditors after declaring all resolutions and/or decisions taken by the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor, which involved Respondent No. I as the lead member of the Committee of Creditor despite it being a related party. as null and void and consequently all such resolutions and/or decisions taken in such Committee of Creditors' meeting involving Respondent No. I should be immediately set aside by this Hon'ble Tribunal; c) Pass/issue necessary order and/or orders staying any further Committee of Creditors' meeting and/ or staying all further functioning of the Committee of Creditor i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn ground on which a judgment can always be recalled by a Court is ground of fraud played on the Court in obtaining judgment from the Court. We, for the purpose of answering the questions referred to us, need not further elaborate the circumstances where power of recall can be exercised."" 10. The submission which has been pressed by learned counsel for the Appellant is that the Application filed by the Appellant was fully covered on the ground that there was suppression on the part of HUDCO which lead to issuance of order dated 30.08.2023 which was obtained by HUDCO by playing fraud on the Court. The submission is pressed on the ground that Annual Report of the HUDCO was not placed by HUDCO when earlier application was decided on 30.08.2023. In the application which was filed by the HUDCO seeking direction to include it in the CoC, reply was filed by the Resolution Professional and the Adjudicating Authority after hearing HUDCO and the Resolution Professional decided the application on merit rejecting the contention of the Resolution Professional for treating HUDCO as related party within the meaning of Section 5(24) (h), (m)(i). The Adjudicating Authority dealt with all contenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
