AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Abhijit Sinha and Mr. PBA. Srninivasan, the Learned Counsel appearing for R2/CoC Canara Bank (one of the ‘Committee of Creditors’).
The Learned Counsel appearing for Appellant Mr. Abhijit Sinha brings to the notice of this ‘Tribunal’, that in Company Appeal (AT)(INS)/553/2019 on the file of the file of this Tribunal (Principal Bench)in IDBI Bank Mumbai V Ms. Mamta Binani, Resolution Professional and 2 Ors on 21.01.2022 wherein at paragraph-77 it is observed as under:
“We are of the view that there is discrimination in allocation of resolution fund. Thus, the approval of resolution plan by the CoC and subsequently approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 03.06.2019 is not sustainable in law. The Appellant was not required to challenge the subsequent order dated 03.06.2019. Thus, the impugned order as ell as the order dated 03.06.2019 are hereby set aside.”
Relying upon the aforesaid observations made by this ‘Tribunal’ in Company Appeal CA(AT)(INS)/553/2019, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Abhijit Sinha points out that in the interim order dated 20.04.2021 passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Hyderabad) had in I.A.1171/2020 and IA (IBC) No. 185/2021 in CP(IB) No. 41/7/HDB/2017 in the matter of ‘Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd’ Canara Bank V Deccan Chronicles wherein paragraph-3 & 4 it is observed as under.
Paragraph-3 – “We are very upset with the said statement of the Resolution Professional for the reason that it is not for the Resolution Professional to decide whether to proceed with the implementation the Resolution Plan or otherwise. However, she has stepped into the shoes of the Successful Resolution Applicant and overplayed her role as Resolution Professional. In view of the controversial stand taken by the Resolution Professional, we hereby refer the matter to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). The manner in which the Resolution Professional is acting against the interest of the Committee of Creditors (Coc), etc. is deplorable. If this kind of things allowed to happen, the very purpose of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code would get defeated.”
Pargraph-4 – “In view of the same the Registry is directed to send a copy of order dated 24.03.2021 and the present order passed by this Bench to the IBBI at the earliest point of time. List the matter with all the IAs for consideration on 01.06.2021.”
The clear cut stand of the Appellant is that when this ‘Tribunal’ had passed the Judgement in Company Appeal (AT)(INS)/553/2019 wherein it is inter alia observed that the approval of the ‘Resolution Plan’ by the ‘Committee of Creditors’ and subsequently approval of Resolution Plan vide order dated 03.06.2019 was unsustainable in law and that the ‘Appellant’ was not required to challenge the subsequent order dated 03.06.2019 and that the impugned order as well as the orders were set aside, this ‘Tribunal’ is of the considered view that the observations made by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ in the Order dated 20.04.2021 in I.A. No.1171 of 2020 and IA (IBC) No. 185/2021 in CP(IB) No. 41/7/HDB/2017 against the ‘Resolution Professional’ stating that the said professional was acting against the interest of the ‘Committee of Creditors’ etc. are clearly unsustainable in Law. Viewed in that perspective, the said observations made in the ‘Interim Order’ passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench) are hereby expunged and set aside by this ‘Tribunal’ and the instant Company Appeal succeeds.
In fine the Company Appeal (AT)(INS)/227/2021 is allowed. No Costs. The Interim Order passed earlier is made absolute.