Muraleedharan V.N. & Ors. vs M/s. Hindustan Newsprint Limited & Ors.

[Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (MJ)] (ORAL)

Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Appellant does not want to pursue this Appeal, therefore, she has prayed that she may be allowed to withdraw the same. On her request, this Appeal is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.

This Order shall dispose of 5 Appeals namely Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 305/2021, Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.114/2021, Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.120/2021, Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.121/2021 & Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.123/2021, because the issues involved in these Appeals are common.

However, the facts are being extracted from Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.121/2021 for the sake of convenience. RBL Bank filed an Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (for short `The Code’) as a Financial Creditor against Hindustan News Print Limited (`Corporate Debtor’) (hereinafter referred to as `HNL’), which was admitted on 28.11.2019.

Shorn of unnecessary details, Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (`KINFRA’) (State Government undertaking) has been the Successful Resolution Applicant (`SRA’) in this case. The Resolution Plan was approved by the Tribunal on 29.01.2021.

It is an admitted case of the Parties that the Order dated 29.01.2021 was challenged by the similarly situated employees as well in Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.29/2021 reported as (2023) 149 taxman.com 234, titled as `C.G. Vijayalakshmi’ Vs. `Shri. Kumar Rajan Resolution Professional Hindustan Newsprint Limited’, in which the following decision has been taken:

Counsel for the SRA has submitted that the Order passed by this Tribunal on 08.02.2023 has been challenged by way of an Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Diary No.16859/2023, only in respect of the direction issued in this Order for making payment of Provident Fund and Gratuity Fund to the employees. Learned Sr. Counsel has submitted that the said Appeal has not yet been listed.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that this Court has already decided the issue involved in these Appeals in `C.G. Vijayalakshmi’ (Supra), therefore, Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that these Appeals may also be disposed of in terms of the Order passed in `C.G. Vijayalakshmi’ (Supra).

Counsel for the Respondents has not raised any objection this regard. At this stage, Counsel for the Appellant has also submitted that in the Order passed in `C.G. Vijayalakshmi’ (Supra), the Tribunal had earlier not issued a direction to the RP to calculate the dues (Provident Fund and Gratuity Fund of the employees) in a time bound manner and to pay the same also in a particular time. Therefore, she has requested that in these cases a direction may also be issued to the Resolution Professional (`RP’) to calculate the unpaid Provident Fund and Gratuity Fund of the employees within a particular period as determined by this Tribunal and also for the purpose of making the payment thereof in a time bound manner.

Counsel for the Appellant has also submitted that the RP has not taken into consideration the fixed assets (land) owned by the Corporate Debtor and thus the asset of the Corporate Debtor has not been maximized. In this regard, it is submitted that though a Notice was issued by the District Collector on 08.01.2019 for resumption of the land, situated in two villages to which the Corporate Debtor gave the reply also on 27.01.2019 but thereafter a deed of conveyance was executed on 13.09.2022 on the basis of which the Corporate Debtor became the owner. She has referred to the details of the claims made as per the Information Memorandum and pointed out the value of plant and equipment and that the RP had raised the issue of the Resolution Plan in regard to the land in question which reads as under:

Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the issue regarding undervaluation of the property in question has been determined in the earlier Appeal i.e., Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.29/2021 titled as `C.G. Vijayalakshmi’ Vs. `Shri. Kumar Rajan Resolution Professional Hindustan Newsprint Limited’, reported as (2023) 149 taxman.com 234, and therefore, the Appellants herein cannot raise the same issue again in these Appeals.

We have heard Counsel for the Parties and after perusal of record, are of the considered opinion that the issue raised by the Appellant has already been raised and determined in the earlier Appeal i.e., Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.29/2021, therefore, the Appellants herein cannot be allowed to raise the issue in the present Appeals as it would be hit by the principle of res-judicata.

It is also pertinent to mention that the Order passed in the earlier Appeal i.e., Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.29/2021, has not been challenged by the Appellant in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has attained finality.

After perusal of record, we are of the considered opinion that these Appeals deserves to be disposed of in terms of the Orders passed in para 29 of the Judgement of this Tribunal in `C.G. Vijayalakshmi’ (Supra), with a further direction to make the calculation and payment of the unpaid funds of the employees within a particular period.

Accordingly, all these Appeals are disposed off in terms of Order passed in para 29 of the case of `C.G. Vijayalakshmi’ (Supra), and the RP is directed to calculate the unpaid dues of the employees in regard to the Provident Fund and Gratuity Fund within a period of two months in accordance with law and then communicate the same to the SRA who would make the payment after receipt of the calculation from the RP within a period of two months thereafter.

This Order shall dispose of a batch of 13 Appeals bearing Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.23/2021, Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.112/2021, Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.115/2021, Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.116/2021, Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.117/2021, Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.118/2021, Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.119/2021, Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.122/2021, Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.124/2021, Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.267/2021, Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.283/2021, Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.202/2021 & Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.344/2021, because the issue involved in all these Appeals is common. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.118/2021.

RBL Bank filed an Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (for short `The Code’) as a Financial Creditor against Hindustan News Print Limited (`Corporate Debtor’) (hereinafter referred to as `HNL’), which was admitted on 28.11.2019.

These Appeals have been preferred by the Operational Creditors (Suppliers) who are aggrieved against the Resolution Plan, on the ground that the Resolution Professional (`RP’) has not taken into consideration the fixed assets (land) owned by the Corporate Debtor bearing 282.86 hectares and thus the asset of the Corporate Debtor has not been maximized.

In this regard, Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that though a Notice was issued by the District Collector on 08.01.2019 for resumption of the land in question (282.86 hectares) which is situated in two villages and to which the Corporate Debtor has given the reply on 27.01.2019 but thereafter a deed of conveyance was executed on 13.09.2022 on the basis of which the Corporate Debtor has become the owner. She has thereafter referred to the details of the claims made as per the Information Memorandum and pointed out that the value of the plant and equipment has been shown at Rs.13,189.76/- and that the RP has raised the issue of the Resolution Plan in regard to the land in question which read as under:

Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the issue regarding undervaluation of the property in question has also been determined in the earlier Appeal i.e., Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.29/2021 titled as `C.G. Vijayalakshmi’ Vs. `Shri. Kumar Rajan Resolution Professional Hindustan Newsprint Limited’, reported as (2023) 149 taxman.com 234, and therefore, the Appellants herein cannot raise the same issue again in these Appeals.

We have heard Counsel for the Parties and after perusal of record, are of the considered opinion that the issue raised by the Appellant has already been raised and determined in the earlier Appeal i.e., Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.29/2021, therefore, the Appellants herein cannot be allowed to raise the issue in the present Appeals as it would be hit by the principle of res-judicata.

It is also pertinent to mention that the Order passed in the earlier Appeal i.e., Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.29/2021, has not been challenged by the Appellant in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has attained finality.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances we do not find any merit in the present Appeals as the issue involved in this Appeals has already been decided in `C.G. Vijayalakshmi’ (Supra), and the present Appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of the observations made in `C.G. Vijayalakshmi’ (Supra).

It is also pertinent to mention at this stage that the Plan submitted by the SRA has been thoroughly implemented way back in 2021.