Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2017 (9) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1199 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyEligibility to execute the assignment agreements - Held that:- In this case, MFL has got all the rights as per the assignment agreements commonly dated 24.11.2016. Hence, the allegations/apprehensions made by the applicants herein are baseless and mere apprehensions, and they are deemed to have been executed in accordance with law especially in the absence of any challenge to those documents by a party to those documents. The applicant doesn't have any locus standi to question those documents in the insolvency proceedings initiated under IBC, 2016 on a far fetched argument that they are going to be effected if the rights of SCL and MFL are recognized basing on the Assignment Agreements in question. And the applicant cannot assume jurisdiction to question the documents in question basing on baseless allegations, apprehension etc. Therefore, we hereby summarily rejected the contentions/allegations of the Applicant with regard to documents in question. In the result, we hereby declare that both SCL and MFL are eligible to execute the assignment agreements in question and all rights flow those agreements to MFL. After getting assignment of rights, the MFL is fully competent to participate in CoC in question and it cannot be called a related party as explained. Whether the above documents were executed without making reference to BIFR is valid or not? - Held that:- Admittedly, the applicant herein and the respondent No.3 are assignees of original lenders to SDAL. It is not the case of the Applicant that Assignors have no right to the rights in question to transfer their rights/interest to the assignee. It is the case of the Applicant that the Respondent No. 3 was assigned the rights/interest in question in order to deprive/reduce the interest of the applicant herein in the CoC. As long as the assignment agreement deeds are valid and legally enforceable, the applicant has no locus standi to question its object, modus operandi behind its execution. The contentions of the Applicant that the Respondent No.3 would become an admitted party by virtue of Section 5(24) is not at all tenable. . The Assignment deeds of various Banks/Financial Institutions/ARCs in favour of Respondent No.2 happened way back in the years 2008-2011 and that too from SBI, IDBI, ICICI (ARCIL). Therefore, we cannot find any fault with these assignment deeds. With respect to the allegation of SCL assigning its debt to MFL on 24.11.2016, we find no merit in this argument as well. As commonly known the promulgation of IBC Code, 2016 was widely discussed/debated/publicized in various media and not out of the blue. Therefore, the assignment deeds between the two entities also legal and permissible. At most it can be said to be similar to tax planning rather tax avoiding. Because of this assignment deed, not only the applicant's share in total debt is reduced, but other financial creditors/Assignees share also proportionately reduced and they did not object to the same but only the applicant agitates with oblique motive/reasons best known to it. Therefore, a fraudulent attempt made to reduce the Applicant's share in the total voting rights is not a plausible pleas by the Applicant. In the absence of any documentary proof/evidence to the claim of the Applicant, the same is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the bench rejects the above allegations/claim of the applicant.
|