Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 545 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of three simultaneous CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt or not - HELD THAT:- The issue raised by the Appellant as a shareholder of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ is that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 being ‘Financial Creditors’ could not be allowed to initiate and trigger three simultaneous ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes’ for one set of claim. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by this Appellate Tribunal in DR. VISHNU KUMAR AGARWAL VERSUS M/S. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD. [2019 (2) TMI 316 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI], which is still occupying the field as the same has not been set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid judgment in Dr. Vishnu Kumar Agarwal’s case rendered by this Appellate Tribunal has neither been stayed nor set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court and it holds the field till date. The proposition of law is unmistakably, unambiguously and lucidly clear that where a ‘Financial Creditor’, whether singly or jointly with other ‘Financial Creditors’ seeks initiation of ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ against the ‘principal borrower’ or one or the other ‘corporate guarantors’ in respect of a claim, it cannot file second application for the same set of claim against the other ‘Corporate Debtor’, be it the principal borrower or one or other Corporate Guarantor. Since the order passed by this Appellate Tribunal in appeal arising out of triggering of ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ initiated at the instance of an ‘Operational Creditor’ against the principal borrower has been set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the dismissal of appeal by this Appellate Tribunal against the order of admission dated 28th August, 2019 stands quashed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, interim protection granted in terms of order dated 30th September, 2019 which had been extended by the Hon’ble Apex Court in terms of order dated 18th February, 2020 while dismissing the appeal and the Adjudicating Authority having extended the interim protection till further orders while being ceased of application under Section 65 of the ‘I&B Code’, in essence the matter qua the principal borrower stands remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to go into the allegation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process having been initiated fraudulently and with malicious intent not for the purpose of resolution in the context of there being a collusion between the principal borrower and the operational creditor. It is abundantly clear that the interim protection granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court and further adopted and extended by the Adjudicating Authority is in regard to the admission of the application under Section 9 of the ‘I&B Code’ allegedly filed by the ‘Operational Creditor’ in collusion with the principal borrower. The appeal is disposed off .by directing the Adjudicating Authority to have a fresh look at the order of admission of application of the ‘Financial Creditors’ under Section 7 of the ‘I&B Code’ against the ‘Corporate Guarantor’-EUIPL (which has been impugned in this appeal) only after application under Section 65 of the ‘I&B Code’ filed by the ‘Financial Creditors’ is disposed of
|