TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Plan submitted by it before the Resolution Professional but not granted the said relief but merely mentioned that no ground for considering the prayer sought in the application is made out by passing a speaking order but merely mentioned, no ground for considering the prayer sought in the application is made out and the said application was dismissed as such. Principles of Res-Judicata - HELD THAT:- The said principle is a prohibition against the Court / Tribunal. An inter-party order passed by a competent Tribunal binds them even if it is an erroneous one. If an order is passed in a given proceedings and the same became final, then in Law, it would be binding at a later stage of the proceeding, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal. Res Judicata prohibits an inquiry at the very threshold and bar the trial of a suit or a given proceeding - The Rule of constructive Res Judicata is enshrined in explanation iv of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. In fact, the doctrine of Res Judicata applies to all judicial proceedings and equally to all quasi-judicial proceedings before Tribunals. When any matter might and ought to have been raised as a ground of defen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o change or supplementary information to the Resolution Plan shall be accepted after the submission date of Resolution Plan then it is not open to the 1st Respondent/ Resolution Applicant to take a topsy turvy stance and is not to be allowed to withdraw the approved Resolution Plan . Delay in completion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- The 2nd Respondent had clearly pointed out before this Tribunal that no special investigation audit was conducted and, therefore, the 1st Respondent/ Resolution Applicant cannot have a grievance that the Resolution Professional had not supplied it a copy of the said Audit Report. Further, the CBI and SFIO proceedings initiated against the Corporate Debtor are pending and hence, and in any event Section 32A of the I B Code grants immunity to the 1st Respondent/ Resolution Applicant in respect of the offences committed by the Corporate Debtor before the start of CIRP . Also, that it specifies that the assets of the Corporate Debtor as represented will be available in the right manner as at the time of furnishing of Resolution Plan . When that be the fact situation, the 1st Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the Resolution Plan. Similarly, the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Code mandates Adjudicating Authority to ensure effective implementation of the resolution plan. The object in approval of the resolution plan is to save the corporate debtor and to put it back on its feet. An unwilling and reluctant resolution applicant, who has withdrawn his resolution plan, neither can put the corporate debtor back to its feet nor the effective implementation of its resolution plan can be ensured. 24. No doubt the withdrawal of the resolution plan at this advance stage has caused great prejudice to the creditors/stake holders and legal consequences on the withdrawal of the resolution plan shall follow as per law. The Resolution Professional and CoC are free to take action as per law consequent upon withdrawal of the resolution plan by resolution applicant including on the issue of refund of the earnest money deposited by the applicant. 25. Be that as it may compelling an unwilling and reluctant resolution applicant to implement the plan may lead to uncertainty. The object of the Code is to ensure that the Corporate Debtor keep working as a going concern and to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it can be shown to the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate Tribunal under the Code that only a short period is left for completion of the insolvency resolution process beyond 330 days, and that it would be in the interest of all stakeholders that the corporate debtor be put back on its feet instead of being sent into liquidation and that the time taken in legal proceedings is largely due to factors owing to which the fault cannot be ascribed to the litigants before the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate Tribunal, the delay or a large part thereof being attributable to the tardy process of the Adjudicating Authority and/or the Appellate Tribunal itself, it may be open in such cases for the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate 132 Tribunal to extend time beyond 330 days. Likewise, even under the newly added proviso to Section 12, if by reason of all the aforesaid factors the grace period of 90 days from the date of commencement of the Amending Act of 2019 is exceeded, there again a discretion can be exercised by the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate Tribunal to further extend time keeping the aforesaid parameters in mind. It is only in such exceptional cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hdrawal of Resolution Plan beyond its jurisdiction. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant comes out with a plea that it is within the exclusive ambit of the Committee of Creditors to examine and determine the feasibility and viability of the approved Resolution Plan and the Impugned Order is an erroneous one because of the reason that the Adjudicating Authority could not permit a 1st Respondent / Resolution Applicant to withdraw from the commitment made before the Committee of Creditors which had crystallized into a concluded contract. 7. The plea of the Appellant is that the reasoning of the Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned Order about the impracticability to implement a plan by an unwilling Resolution Applicant has conferred sanctity to an unlawful conduct of the 1st Respondent and also defeated the objective of the Code. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant to lend support to its contention that an Adjudicating Authority is not to encroach upon the majority decision of the Committee of Creditors except for the grounds specified under sub-section (a) to (e) of Section 30(2) of the I B Code relies on the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terested in the Corporate Debtor , as is evident from the letter sent by it on 1.6.2020, having seen interest in the Corporate Debtor and emphasizing that the software licences granted by the Corporate Debtor have become more relevant in the current circumstances where online education appears to be only viable medium of education. 14. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the reliance placed on the side of 1st Respondent / Successful Resolution Applicant in regard to the applications filed by Creditors seeking investigations is misconceived because of the reason that said applications were filed in May, 2018 and the said applications were disposed of on 9.8.2018(viz. before the orders were reserved on the approval application). 15. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Tribunal that Section 32A of the I B Code grants immunity to a Resolution Applicant from any offences committed by the Corporate Debtor prior to the commencement of CIRP and provides certainty to the Successful Resolution Applicant , that the assets of the Corporate Debtor has represented would be available in the same manner as at the time of submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sages a minimum period of 105 days to complete the entire process, demoralizes the interests of Committee of Creditors and other stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor but also places the Corporate Debtor at the brim of liquidation. 19. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that upon the Approved Resolution Plan being put to vote, 74.16% of Committee of Creditors voted in favour of the Approved Resolution Plan . Later, the Chhatisgarh State Electricity Board Gratuity and Pension Trust and Chhatisgarh State Electricity Board Provident Fund Trust (collectively CSEB)(having a vote share of 1.195%) vide e.mail dated 23.3.2018 requested its vote to be treated as yes for having not participated in lieu of a technical error. 20. On behalf of the Appellant, it is brought to the notice of this Tribunal that as the voting share in favour of the Approved Resolution Plan would be 75.36%, the Resolution Professional filed an application CA No. 165(PB)2018 before the Adjudicating Authority seeking directions among other things on the future course of action to be adopted and on 28.2.2018, the Adjudicating Authority had directed the Resolution Professional to fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id Paul , (2006) 2 SCC page 282. 25. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out that Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Rules, 2016 has recognised the inherent powers in regard to the matters relating to the court for meeting the ends of justice. 26. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant relies on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Arcelor Mittal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta (2019)2 SCC page 1 at special page wherein at paragraph 86 it is observed that the act of the Court shall harm no man . 27. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court Swiss Ribbon Vs. Union of India ; (2019)4 SCC at page 17 wherein at paragraph 11 and 12 it is observed that the intent of the Code is to ensure revival and continuation of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and Liquidation is to be only a last resort. 28. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant cites the order of High Court of Delhi dated 16.3.2020 in WP (Crl.)3037/2019 and Crl. MA 39126/2019 Tata Steel BSL Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. wherein at paragraph 6 (by referring to Section 32A(1 of IBC as inserted by the Amendment A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on account of various factors including the erosion of commercial substratum of the Corporate Debtor sought withdrawal of the Resolution Plan simpliciter. d) No reasons were furnished and there was no bar for the Resolution Applicant later exercising his right and entitlement to withdraw the Resolution Plan on the basis that its validity had expired and he was no longer interested in pursuing the same. e) The Adjudicating Authority had not consciously adjudicated the issue of withdrawal of Resolution Plan filed by the 1st Respondent which is evident from the order dated 10.07.2019 in CA 1252 of 2019 and confirmed by the express findings of the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order. f) The order dated 10.07.2019 in CA 1252/2019(disentitling the Resolution Applicant to financial information of the Corporate Debtor ) cannot act as a bar to the Resolution Applicant in exercising its right to withdraw the plan (after the expiry of its validity period), the Resolution Applicant filed CA 1816/2019 which was allowed by the impugned order. g) There is no infirmity in the impugned order which appreciates that there was no conscious adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and examined in detail the RFRP and the Information Memorandum, set out the offer and the related information in relation to the resolution of Educomp Solutions Ltd. 35. In pith and substance, the stand of the 1st Respondent is that RFRP issued by the Appellant is an invitation to offer and that the Resolution Plan is an offer submitted by the 1st Respondent pursuant to the RFRP in short such an offer being a qualified one, it binds the offer or / promise or i.e. the Resolution Applicant only when such an offer is accepted as per its term. 36. The other contention advanced on behalf of the 1st Respondent is that the covering letter for submission of Resolution Plan explicitly points out that all the terms and conditions of the Resolution Plan would be valid for acceptance for a period of six months from the date of submission of the Plan and as such the Resolution Plan submitted by the 1st Respondent is to be a qualified offer, which is not open for an acceptance for an indefinite period. Also that when there was a delay of several months in the approval of Resolution Plan the 1st Respondent is at liberty to withdraw from RFRP after completion of six ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olution Plan . 40. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent brings it to the notice of this Tribunal that on 2.7.2018 the Resolution Applicant addressed a letter to the Resolution Professional noting that the validity of the Resolution Plan as expiring in August and that it would be Perforced to among other things, withdraw the Resolution Plan on account of complete erosion of the commercial substratum of the Corporate Debtor . However, no reply was received by the 1st Respondent to the said letter which points out the fact that after August, 2018, the Resolution Applicant was at full liberty to withdraw its plan and upon such withdrawal, it would follow that such plan would be not capable of being implemented. Moreover, after lapse of more than 18 months from the date of submission of Resolution Plan viz. 19.2.2018 and 27 months from the CIRP commencement date, the application for its approval was still pending before the Adjudicating Authority on 10.09.2019 when the application for withdrawal of the Plan filed by the 1st Respondent culminated in the impugned order. 41. It is represented on behalf of the 1st Respondent that erosion of commercial considerations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ors. 2019 SCC online 1478 at para no. 47. 45. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent takes a plea that it is well within the powers of the Adjudicating Authority and also this Tribunal to withhold approval to the Plan and / or allow the withdrawal thereof as per Inherent powers'. 46. In regard to the plea of Res Judicata , the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent contends that the Resolution Applicant could not have sought withdrawal of the Resolution Plan in CA 1252/2019 without having been provided with a information and material sought and in view of this aspect alone, the applicability of the doctrine of Res Judicata or constructive Res Judicata ought to be ruled out. In fact, the relief prayed for in C.A. 1252/2019 clearly shows that the Resolution Applicant was seeking information and details relating to the various events and sought to ascertain the financial position of the Corporate Debtor . As a matter of fact, only consequent upon being provided with such information and material, that the Resolution Applicant also sought leave to suitably revaluate and revise the Resolution Plan . Therefore, it is clear that de hors being provided with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent relies on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court Kaushik Cooperative Building Society v. N.Parvathamma (2017) 13 SCC 138 whereby and whereunder it is observed as follows:- To constitute matter resjudicata, the conditions to be proved are that the litigating parties are the same, that the subject matter is also identical and the matter has been finally decided between the parties by a court of competed jurisdiction . 51. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent contends that there was no conscious adjudication on merits of the issues arising in C.A. 1816/2019 in the earlier order dated 10.9.2019 arising out of CA 1252/2019 and in fact the order dated 10.9.2019 is not a reasoned order with a view to attract the application of the doctrine of Res Judicata . 52. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent cites the following Supreme Court decisions: - i) In the decision Daryo v. State of UP (1962) 1 SCR 574, 591 wherein it is observed as under: - 26 .If a Writ Petition is dismissed in limine and an order is pronounced in that behalf, whether or not the dismissal would constitute a bar would depend upon the nature o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly whatever observations might have been made by this Court while dealing with Issue 4, cannot be said to be an express decision on the vexed question as to whether the assessment of the need for chrome ore, so far as the appellant is concerned.. It is therefore difficult to agree with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that such an issue was expressly adjudicated upon by this court in the aforesaid decision and the findings thereon, therefore, could not be made the subject matter of fresh proceedings between the parties. Not only were the contesting parties not heard on the issue but also there was no final decision thereon inter se these parties . iv) and the observations in Daryo v. State of UP (1962) 1 SCR 574, 591 were supported by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC at page 359. v) In Ajay Arjun Singh v. Sharadendu Tiwari and Ors. 2016 6 SCC 576 it is observed and held that a vague, cryptic and casual order in former proceeding containing finding that was neither directly in issue nor properly examined cannot amount to Res Judicata . 53. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... July, 2018 seeking investigation of the affairs / transactions of the Corporate Debtor with respect to the statements / irregularities in the affairs of Corporate Debtor in its Annual Accounts on the basis of certain articles / Media Reports published in a publication the Wire . 57. According to the 2nd Respondent the aforesaid applications along with the plan approval application were heard by the Adjudicating Authority and that the Resolution Professional was directed to convene COC meeting to discuss about these applications and pursuant to the directions in terms of the order dated 9.8.2018, the 13th COC meeting of the Corporate Debtor took place on 13.8.2018 and a Resolution for conducting special investigation audit of the Corporate Debtor by an independent agency was approved by the Committee of Creditors by voting share of 77.85%. Also, it was resolved that an application would be filed by the Resolution Professional seeking consent / order of the Adjudicating Authority to conduct the Special Investigation Audit . 58. The Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent points out that the Resolution Professional filed CA 793(PB) of 2018 Investigation Aud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Corporate Debtor on 11.2.2020 and that the said search was conducted on the basis of First Information Report lodged by the State Bank of India on 10.2.2020 on its behalf and various Consortium Banks . Also, that the CBI team took numerous documents from the Corporate Office of the Corporate Debtor and that the list of documents taken by the Central Bureau of Investigation was circulated to the members by way of email dated 29.3.2020 prior to the holding of 16th COC meeting dated 30.3.2020. 62. The Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent points out that later on numerous occasions the CBI team had visited the corporate office of the Corporate Debtor and remained there for 15 days and requisitioned the customer agreements relating to financial year 2011-2012 and an intimation of search conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation as well as list of documents provided to CBI was shared with the COC through email dates 17.2.2020 and 19.2.2020 and later on 29.3.2020. 63. The Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent points out that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs through its order No. 32/2018/SFIO/CL-II dated 01.08.2018 had ordered an investigation into the affa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as approved by the Committee of Creditors; ii. Direct the Ld. Resolution Professional and/or Educomp Solutions Limited and the Committee of Creditors to refund the Earnest Money Deposit of ₹ 2,00,00,000/- furnished by the Resolution Applicant in respect of the Resolution Plan; iii. Withhold approval of the Resolution Plan sanctioned by the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor, as filed before this Hon ble Tribunal on 07.03.2018 and recorded vide order dated 11.04.2018, pending detailed consideration of the same by the Resolution Applicant; iv. Pass any other order(s), and/ or any other consequential reliefs as deemed fit and proper by this Hon ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 67. The Adjudicating Authority in CA 1310(PB)/2019 on 5.9.2019 had observed the following: - In para B(xii) under the caption facts of the case , the following averments have been made xii. That the present Applicant had also filed an Application dated 05.07.2019 bearing PB/1A/1252/2019 under Section 60(5) of the Code, seeking revision/revaluation of the Resolution Plan. However, the same was dismissed by this Hon ble Tribunal and during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information, which is in negation of Section 29 of the I B Code. Furthermore, the 1st Respondent would have to take on extreme financial positions on the basis of Resolution Plan and substantial changes in the financial position of the Corporate Debtor would in law and in equity deserve reconsideration. Moreover, to protect the interests of shareholders, the copy of the special investigation audit may be made available to the Resolution Applicant . That apart, the Resolution Professional prayed for the supply of certificates u/s 43,45,50 and 66 of the I B Code to the Resolution Professional forthwith. 70. It comes to be known that no audit was conducted in respect of the (i) relief prayed for by the 1st Respondent / Resolution Applicant in CA 1252/2019 and as such it is held by this Tribunal that the question of non-supply of the copy of Special Investigation Audit would not arise on any count. 71. In regard to the (ii) relief prayed for by the 1st Respondent / Resolution Applicant in CA 1252/2019 that the Resolution Professional may be directed to supply with a copy of certificates Under Sections 43,45,50 and 66 of the I B Code to the Resolution Applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d relief in CA 1310 of 2019 claiming refund of earnest money deposit of ₹ 2/- crores from the Resolution Professional and/or Educomp Solutions Ltd. furnished by the Resolution Applicant in respect of Resolution Plan was not claimed in CA 1252 of 2019. 74. It is evident that the Adjudicating Authority while dismissing the CA No. 1310(PB)/2019 on 5.9.2019 with certain observations made against the 1st Respondent had granted to it, to file fresh one on the same cause of action, if so advised and resting on the said liberty, the 1st Respondent/Applicant had filed yet another CA 1816 of 2019 wherein the impugned order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 2.1.2020. Res Judicata 75. In regard to the principle of Res Judicata it is to be pointed out that the said principle is a prohibition against the Court / Tribunal. An inter-party order passed by a competent Tribunal binds them even if it is an erroneous one. If an order is passed in a given proceedings and the same became final, then in Law, it would be binding at a later stage of the proceeding, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal. Res Judicata prohibits an inquiry at the very threshold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or accidental or involuntary one. 82. Although the iiird relief of withholding of approval of Resolution Plan sanctioned by the Committee of Creditors is very same one claimed in CA No. 1252 of 2019 is the very same one as iiird relief in CA 1310/2019 and notwithstanding the fact the same was not dealt with in CA 1252 of 2019 order dated 10.7.2019, in view of the dismissal of said CA 1252(PB)/2019 by the Adjudicating Authority and the said order which had attained finality and more so in the absence of any Appeal being filed against the said order, then the dismissal order of CA 1252 of 2019 order dated 10.7.2019 binds the 1st Respondent/ Resolution Applicant as an Inter-se party. 83. In so far as the plea of the 1st Respondent / Resolution Applicant that it was constrained to file CA 1310(PB)/2019 based on the suggestion of the Adjudicating Authority and in the absence of same not being borne out from any record or neither reflected in the order passed in CA1252/2019 dated 10.7.2019, it was not open to the 1st Respondent to file CA 1310(PB)/2019 and the Adjudicating Authority had observed that the cause of action could not be based on such things and dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he parties that was not decided previously and despite been pleaded was not considered by court/Tribunal and expressly dealt with in the order so passed etc., this Tribunal is of the considered view that these observations are not legally tenable because of the latent and patent fact that the grounds raised by the 1st Respondent / Successful Resolution Applicant in CA 1816(PB)2018 (withdrawal application) were projected earlier and rejected in CA No. 1252(PB)/2019 through an order dated 10.7.2019. Furthermore, the plea of the 1st Respondent / Successful Resolution Applicant and the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that the prayer for withdrawal was not considered while disposing of CA No. 1252(PB)/2019 is quite in tune with the very principle of Res Judicata which means that the reliefs should be deemed to have been denied when what were claimed being not granted which unerringly points out that they were denied or refused by the Adjudicating Authority. Even an order / decision of a competent Court/Tribunal on a point of Law operates as Res Judicata . The principle of Res Judicata is that cause of action for second proceeding merged in first proceeding does not surv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of RFRP is the minimum validity period. Further, Clause 7 of the Approved Resolution Plan read in the context of RFRP is only a reference to the Resolution Plan being valid for six months for acceptance of the Committee of Creditors and in short post Committee of Creditors approval the Resolution Plan is a statutory binding contract only conditional to the approval of Adjudicating Authority which can be refused only on account of non-compliance of the conditions mentioned in Section 30(2) of the Code which is conspicuously absent in the present case. Therefore, it is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the 1st Respondent / Resolution Applicant is bound by the Approved Resolution Plan duly accepted by the Committee of Creditors . On behalf of the Appellant, a reliance is placed upon the judgement of this Tribunal in Apollo Jyoti LIC and Ors. v. Jyoti Structures Ltd. Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) No. 461/2018 dated 19.03.2019 wherein it is observed that the Committee of Creditor is empowered to change its decision on rejection of Resolution Plan but within 270 days. 91. The aim of Resolution is for maximization of the value of Assets of the Corporate De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudicating Authority yet this Court comes to an cocksure conclusion that the Adjudicating Authority , in law cannot enter into the arena of the majority decision of the Committee of Creditors other than the grounds mentioned in Section 32(a to e) of the I B Code. Moreover, after due deliberations, when the 1st Respondent/ Resolution Applicant had accepted the conditions of the Resolution Plan especially keeping in mind the ingredients of Section 25(2)(h) of the Code to the effect that no change or supplementary information to the Resolution Plan shall be accepted after the submission date of Resolution Plan then it is not open to the 1st Respondent/ Resolution Applicant to take a topsy turvy stance and is not to be allowed to withdraw the approved Resolution Plan . 96. Coming to the aspect of there being a delay in completion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor i.e. after lapse of more than 18 months from the date of submission of the Resolution Plan (i.e. 19.2.2018) and 27 months from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process commencement date the application for its approval was still pending before the Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive contentions, taking note of qualitative and quantitative upshot and keeping in mind the facts and circumstance of the instant case which float on the surface, this Tribunal comes to an irresistible conclusion that the views arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority in CA No.1816(PB)/2019 in C.P.(IB)No. 101 (PB) 2017 to the effect (i)that doctrine of Res Judicata does not apply to the present case (ii) in granting the relief of withdrawal of Resolution Plan with costs and resultantly allowing the aforesaid CA No. 1816(PB)/2019 in C.P.(IB)No. 101 (PB) 2017 partly specifying the terms therein with costs of ₹ 1 lakh to be paid by the 1st Respondent/ Resolution Applicant are clearly unsustainable in law and accordingly, they are set aside in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. Resultantly, the present Appeal succeeds. In fine, the present Appeal is allowed with no costs. The impugned order dated 02.01.2020 in CA No. 1816(PB)/2019 in C.P.(IB)No. 101 (PB) 2017 is set aside for the reasons ascribed in this Appeal by this Tribunal. The CA No. 1816(PB)/2019 is dismissed. I.A. No. 531/2020(seeking exemption to file clear copy etc.) is closed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
