AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
14.10.2022: Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Appeal has been filed against order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by which order the Adjudicating Authority has observed that application filed by the applicant need to be heard extensively, hence, application was fixed for 25.10.2022. In the I.A. which was filed by the Appellant being I.A. No. 271/CB/2022, Appellant has made following prayers:
“a. Set aside decision of the Respondent No.2 i.e. Committee of Creditors of OCL Iron and Steel Ltd. to revise the commercials in the resolution plans submitted by the resolution Applicant (as amended from time to time); and/or
b. Direct the Respondent No.1 to have the Respondent No.2 to vote on the resolution plans already submitted prior to vote on the resolution plans already submitted prior to the meeting of the Committee of Creditors held on 16.09.2022; and/ or
c. In the intervening period and until the final adjudication of the present application
i.grant stay on the ongoing voting process; and/or
ii.not declare the result of the ongoing voting process;
d. Any other order(s) as deemed fit and appropriate by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances.”
On the said I.A. order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 10.10.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, this Appeal has been filed.
Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the order contends that in the application, the Applicant/ Appellant has also prayed for certain interim prayers i.e. granting stay of ongoing voting process and not to declare result of the voting. The Adjudicating Authority committed error in not considering the interim prayers even though the Adjudicating Authority has fixed 25.10.2022 for hearing the application.
Learned counsel for the Appellant raised various submissions with regard to decision taken by the CoC in its meeting held on 16.09.2022 and subsequent events thereafter including issuance of the LOI to the Successful Resolution Applicant.
Learned counsel appearing for the Resolution Professional submits that after the voting was completed day before yesterday, in pursuance of the voting LOI has been issued and an application under Section 31 has already been e-filed yesterday and hard copy is being filed before the Adjudicating Authority today being the last day of the CIRP. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that since application under Section 31 has been filed, the Appellant has right to file objections questioning all events including the decision taken by the CoC in its meeting dated 16.09.2022 and issuance of the LOI.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
While passing the order dated 10.10.2022, the Adjudicating Authority directed for fixing the application on 25.10.2022 but did not pass any ad-interim order as was prayed by the Applicant/ Appellant. It is submitted that process of voting has been completed day before yesterday and in pursuance of voting, the LOI has been issued and now application under Section 31 has been filed before the Adjudicating Authority.
At this stage, we cannot pass any interim order as was prayed by the applicant in his application I.A. No. 271/CB/2022 due to the subsequent events. We only observe that it is open for the applicant to file his objections. He is permitted to file application challenging the decision of the CoC and consequent events including issuance of LOI and it is for the Adjudicating Authority to consider the said objections and to take appropriate decision after hearing the parties. The Adjudicating Authority is clothed with sufficient jurisdiction to take appropriate decision to balance the interest of all the parties. With these observations, we dispose of this Appeal.