TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t talks. The statutory scheme makes it clear that the erstwhile Board of Directors are not members of the Committee of Creditors, but they do have a right to participate in the meetings held by the Committee of Creditors and have a right to discuss all resolution plans. The plan would now have to be placed before the NCLT, where the Board Members would be represented. Thus, the Promoters cannot derive any benefit out of the order of the NCLAT which is a common order in which they were one of the appellants and it is the flat buyers who are really the interested parties who have agreed to settle in the aforesaid terms - any claims or rights of the Promoters which they may seek from the NCLAT order impugned is closed. Appeal allowed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA For the Appellant : Dr. Abhishek M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Denzil Arambhan, Adv. Ms. Shachi Udeshi, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Ray, Adv. Mr. Chiranjivi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neetika Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Goyal, AOR For the Respondent : Mrs. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Goutham Shivshankar, AOR Ms. Oindril ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bitration Act, 1996). As informed, neither of these objections to the petitions were admitted nor notice issued as on date. One of the operational Creditors (Nuvco Vistas Corporation Ltd.) moved the NCLT, Chennai under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016(for short, the Code ) by an application under Section 9 of the said Code to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor. The appellant submitted the claim in terms of the award. The Interim Resolution Professional initially admitted the claim of the appellant as a Financial Creditor but, Mr. V.S. Suresh contended that the appellant should be treated as a related party of the Corporate Debtor. The appellant was thus not included in the Committee of Creditors (CoC). In the proceedings initiated before the NCLT, a direction was issued to the Resolution Professional to decide the status of the appellant which opined against the appellant insofar as the status as a related party of the Corporate Debtor under Section 5(24)(h) and 5(24) (m)(i) of the Code. The appellant being aggrieved by the same approached the NCLT, Chennai which opined vide its order dated 03.01.2020 that the appellant was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard representatives being mandatorily 50% was only for the protection of interest of the Creditor as the decision making process must involve inclusion of the investor who had invested heavily. c) The clauses in the agreement were added not for the benefit of any particular individual/party but for the benefit of protection of 433 investors on whose behalf, the appellant had invested. d) It is further contended that the provisions would apply in praesenti i.e.,on the date of the CIRP. Even if it be assumed that the appellant initially had any sort of control, the same would not hold true due to a change in the status of appellant as a mere Creditor after the exit agreement and having invoked the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to claim amounts prior to the initiation of the CIRP. Various judicial pronouncements were cited in this behalf- Arcelor Mittal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 1 , Vodafone International Holdings BV vs. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 613 and Subhkam Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SEBI (2010) SCC OnLine SAT 35 . We have the benefit of hearing submissions of Mr. Nikhil Nayyer learned senior counsel. In the course of arguments, we pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aints filed by the flat buyers pending before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) will stand withdrawn and all proceedings arising from the orders passed by Tamil Nadu RERA shall also stand withdrawn. e) Appellant s Application being IA No. 1362/IB/2020 and IA No. 218(CHE)/2021 filed before NCLT, Chennai shall stand withdrawn. f) Flat buyers application No. 1/2022 in NCLAT Appeal Diary No. 774/2021 before NCLAT, Chennai Bench shall stand withdrawn. g) The issue of related party status of the appellant would also stand closed by the stand taken by these parties and the aforesaid issue will not be reagitated before the Resolution Professional or any other fora. We appreciate the stand taken before us both by the appellant and the flat buyers who put an end to this lis to the benefit of all. The Resolution Applicant(s) also support the course of action adopted by the home buyers and the appellant. The Promoters having failed in their initial duty to construct the flats or meet the obligation of the appellant still want to oppose the settlement as they claim that the appellant who made the financial contribution actually fall in the category of relate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
