TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of India, wants this Court to issue a positive direction to NCLT, Chennai Bench, to exercise its inherent power in a particular manner. In the considered opinion of the Court, it cannot issue a positive direction to NCLT, Chennai Bench, as to how it should exercise its inherent power. The NCLT/Tribunal also found that in real sense, the revision petitioner wants to recall of the Resolution Plan and the said cause could be taken as a ground for filing an appeal under Section 32 of IBC. Thus, there is an effective alternate remedy provided to the revision petitioner who also claimed to be an Operational Creditor. If this Court starts entertaining revision petitions like this, there is a likelihood of opening of flood gates where the alleged aggrieved person, without resorting to the alternate remedy of appeal, would often approach this Court and that is not the object of IBC - This Court, on an independent appraisal of the entire materials as well as the contents of the impugned order passed by NCLT, Chennai Bench, is of the considered view that there is no error apparent or infirmity in the reasons assigned and finds no merit in this Civil Revision Petition. Petition dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt at Bangalore. (4)It is further averred that the said Memorandum of Understanding dated 08.07.2007 also contains an arbitration clause and accordingly, Arbitration proceedings were also initiated. The Corporate Debtor / 2nd respondent herein also made a challenge to the criminal prosecution in FIR No.344 of 2007, wherein this Court directed the 2nd respondent/Corporate Debtor to cooperate with the investigation. However, he did not cooperate with the same. (5)According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent/Corporate Debtor is due and payable a sum of ₹ 50,08,53,301/- as on 3.05.2018 and therefore, had filed a Claim in Form B before the 1st respondent Resolution Professional. The petitioner also became aware of the fact that the proceedings under the IBC against the 2nd respondent / Corporate Debtor was initiated by M/s.Udhayaman Investments Private Limited and vide order dated 12.03.2018, NCLT, Chennai, had appointed the 1st respondent as the Insolvency Resolution Professional [IRP] and during the first Committee of Creditors Meeting, the 1st respondent was appointed as IRP with effect from 17.04.2018. However, the petitioner was not put on notice. (6)The N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds that the claim cannot be collated and included in the list of creditors even as a rejected claim since the criminal investigation is pending and the Accounts of the 2nd respondent/Corporate Debtor discloses the amount to be recovered, the claim was treated as abandoned. (9)The revision petitioner, challenging the said communication, has filed miscellaneous applications before the NCLT and the NCLT/Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 04.11.2019, had dealt with its powers under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, [NCLT Rules] and found that the petitioner, under the garb of the application, wants to recall the Resolution Plan already approved in accordance with law and in the absence of any such provision for recalling and in exercise of the inherent power under Rule 11, the Authority cannot assume powers derived under the Companies Act. In paragraph No.7 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has observed that if at all any party feels aggrieved of the Plan approved, it is always open to such person to assail the order by filing an appeal, but not to appeal for reversal of the Resolution process by asking for recalling of the Resolution Plan. (10) The NCLT/ T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside the order in IND/811/2019 dated 30.08.2019 of the learned Assistant Registrar of National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai and direct the Registry to number the Miscellaneous Application and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.'' (16)The NCLT/Tribunal, in the impugned order held that the said prayer virtually amounts to reversal/recall of the Resolution Plan and the same cause could be taken as a ground for filing an appeal under Section 32 of IBC and not by way of this application which is impermissible in law. As regards exercise of inherent power, the Tribunal has observed that assuming the power of recall is inbuilt in IBC and it can be exercised only in cases where the order is passed without jurisdiction or fraudulently obtained and that is not the case here and the Tribunal, further observed that in the absence of specific conferment of review jurisdiction, it cannot exercise the power to review. (17)In the decision of M/s.Embassy Property Developments Private Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2019 [17] SCALE 37 [cited supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition was filed on 06.12.2019 and it was returned for production of the approval of the Resolution Plan and vide endorsement dated 22.01.2020, the papers were represented and the revision itself came to be numbered on 05.02.2020. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the proviso to Section 61[2] of IBC and would submit that since the period of limitation is self contained one and that the impugned order came to be passed as early as on 04.11.2019, the petitioner may not be in a position to avail the appeal remedy. (23)This Court has considered the said submission. From the perusal of the papers, it is prima facie disclosed that the petitioner was diligently prosecuting the proceedings by filing Civil Revision Petition and though it was presented on 06.12.2019, it came to be numbered on 05.02.2020 after compliance of certain returns. Therefore, it is for the revision petition to convince the NCLAT as to how the appeal petition is within the limitation period. (24)In the result, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Insolvency & Bankruptc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
