AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
21.05.2025: These two appeals have been filed against an impugned order dated 06.10.2021 whereby the Ld. NCLT had passed following order:
“9.In view of the above, this Bench Orders the following:-
(i)Cancels the Tripartite Agreement executed on 25.10.2019 during the Moratorium period in violation of Section 14 of the IBC. The Bench further directs the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Limited to cancel its registration of the Tripartite Agreement as Mr. Vinod Kuwadia of Maan Tubinox Ltd has fraudulently and without any authority of the Resolution Professional to whom the responsibility of running the Corporate Debtor has passed u/s 74.
(ii)The General Manager, Madhya Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation is also directed to cancel its Order dated 29.06.2019 by which it allowed the Sub-lease of land admeasuring 24,281.2 sq. mtr to M/s. Maan Tubinox Limited.
(iii)This Bench finds that each of the Corporate Debtor ex-director/ promoter have violated Section 66 and also Section 14 of the IBC and, therefore, in terms of Section 74 of the IBC, impose a fine of Rs.5 lakh (Rupees Five Lakh Only). On each of them. This fine will be credited to the bank account of the Corporate Debtor Company within five working days from the pronouncement of this Order.
10.The RP is directed to file compliance report within 3 weeks of the pronouncement of this Order.”
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to the order dated 19.03.2024 passed in the present appeals wherein it was noted a Tripartite Agreement of 2019 was entered into between the Appellant, Respondent and MPIDC and despite that MPIDC was never made a party and instead Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation was made a party before the Ld. NCLT.
It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant the Appellant is a sub-lessee of land admeasuring 24,281.2 sq. mtrs. and such sub-lease was executed vide a Tripartite Agreement on 25.10.2019, which stood cancelled vide the impugned order.
It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant since the necessary and proper parties were not there before the Ld. NCLT, hence, it would be appropriate if the impugned order is set aside and after making MPIDC a party to the lis below; the appellant be allowed to pursue its case afresh before the Ld. NCLT. The Learned Counsel for MPIDC also supports this plea.
The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Liquidator submits the liquidator shall move an application to implead MPIDC as a party before the Ld. NCLT so that the matter may be decided with necessary and proper parties on board.
Since MPIDC with whom the Tripartite Agreement dated 25.10.2019 was entered into by the Appellant was never a party before the Ld. NCLT, hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded at the request of all the Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties. The Ld. NCLT to decide it afresh once MPIDC is impleaded as a party on an application of the Liquidator. Both these appeals are disposed of in terms of above. The impugned order is thus set aside. Pending application(s) filed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 877 of 2021 and 882 of 2021 are also disposed of.