LIC Housing Finance Ltd. vs Buoyant Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd.

The Appellant has preferred this instant Appeal, being aggrieved against the Impugned Order dated 24.06.2022, as it has been rendered in CP(IB) No.13/BB/2022, LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Vs M/s. Buoyant Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd, the Respondent herein. The consequential effect of the impugned order under challenge was that, the CIRP Proceedings as sought to be initiated by invoking the provisions under Section 7 of I & B Code, has been rejected.

During the intervening period, further development has taken place, and proceedings under Section 9 of the I & B Code, 2016, has been initiated at the behest of M/s. Total Solutions Intec Pvt. Ltd., in Company Petition being CP(IB) No.98/BB/2024, before NCLT, Bengaluru Bench by which the Corporate Debtor the respondent herein has been admitted into the CIRP Proceedings, under Section 9 of the I & B Code, 2016. As against the said order, as rendered on 23.08.2024, a writ petition has been preferred by the Corporate Debtor, being Writ Petition No.24478/2024, before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, in which an Interim Order, has been passed on 03.09.2024, whereby the effect of Para 10 of the Impugned Order has been directed to be kept in abeyance.

The Appellant submits that, as a consequence of the initiation of CIRP Proceedings under Section 9 of the I & B Code, 2016, he has raised his claim and the claim thus submitted by him has been provisionally admitted and as his claims against the Corporate Debtor has been admitted in the CIRP Proceedings his grievances have been addressed for the time being. But he apprehends that a contrary decision in the pending writ petition challenging the CIRP proceedings under Section 9 of the I & B Code, will result in de facto denial of his claims as his claims have only provisionally been admitted and even though he has filed an Intervention Application in the writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, a decision in the writ petition in favour of Corporate Debtor may result in his claims being rejected and accordingly he submits that he may not be deprived of his right to put a challenge to the order of the adjudicating authority rejecting his application under Section 7 of the code, in case such a situation arises. Owing to the fact that the appellant has submitted to the Section 9 proceedings, by filing of his claim which has been provisionally admitted, and that though the said CIRP proceedings are still the subject matter of the writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, the rights of the Appellant to agitate his cause will continue to be saved upon consideration of his intervention application which is already pending consideration before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.

This Company Appeal, as far as it relates to the rejection of the application under Section 7 of the code at the behest of the Appellant, for all practical purposes has been rendered infructuous; and the same is accordingly dismissed as having rendered infructuous without prejudicing the rights of the Appellant to resort to his appropriate remedies if any required, on any consequential order to be passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in the aforesaid writ petition or even in the intervention application.