TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,36,590/- in respect of the estimated expenses, etc. To put it precisely, IA/232(CHE)/2021 in IBA/81/2020 was filed pursuant to the ingredients of Regulation 30A(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons). Application filed by the Applicants/Proposed Respondents No.3 and 4 seeking permission of this Tribunal to get themselves impleaded in the instant Company Appeal as Respondents No.3 and 4, to avoid plurality/multiplicity of litigation is not entertained - appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Insolvency) No. 39 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 1-7-2021 - [Justice Venugopal M] Member (Judicial) And [V.P. Singh] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Satish Parasaran, Senior Advocate For Mr. Vipin Warrier, Advocate For the Respondent No.1/Caveator : Mr.Vinoth Kumar, Advocate For Mr.M.D. Srinivasan, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : Mr.S. Sathiyanarayanan, Advocate (For Resolution Professional) For proposed Respondents 3 and 4 : Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate (Impleading Applicants) JUDGMENT (VIRTUAL MODE) Preamble: 1. The Appellant has preferred the present Appeal , as an aggri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-II, Chennai), the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-II, Chennai) had failed to hear the application of the Appellant/Financial Creditor before permitting the withdrawal application of the Operational Creditor in IBA/81/2020. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Bank submits that the Adjudicating Authority had failed to appreciate that the CIRP was initiated pursuant to its order dated 05.03.2021 in IBA/81/2020 (filed by the 1st Respondent/Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the I B Code, 2016 against the Corporate Debtor ) and permitting withdrawal after initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process without considering the concerns of other interested parties, will affect the interest of parties who are also part of the Insolvency Resolution Process . 5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Bank points out that after the initiation of CIRP , a withdrawal application can be approved only with the consent of all the parties involved, in terms of the provisions of the Code, or in any event, after hearing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant refers to the Judgment dated 06.12.2019 of this Tribunal in Jai Kishan Gupta v. Green Edge Buildtech Llp and 2 ors. (vide Company Appeal (AT)(INS)969-970 of 2019) whereby and whereunder at paragraph 13 had observed as under: The question, however, remains that the Hon ble Supreme Court has in the above para 82 left discretion with the Adjudicating Authority to allow or disallow an Application for withdrawal or settlement. The last sentence of the paragraph states that this will be decided after hearing of the parties concerned and considering all relevant factors on the facts of each case. Thus, Adjudicating Authority has to consider all relevant factors on facts of each case and to take a decision. Para 83 of the Judgment in the matter of Swiss Ribbons has dealt with a decision being taken by CoC under Section 12A and left the door open that if CoC arbitrarily rejects a just settlement and/or withdrawal claim the NCLT, and thereafter NCLAT can set aside such decisions under Section 60 of the Code. 1st Respondent Submissions: 10. Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent that the instant Appeal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uisite form FA. In fact, the 2nd Respondent had submitted an application in Form FA under Regulation 30A of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (Regulations) read with Section 12A of the Code (as amended) for withdrawal of CIRP on 10.03.2021. The Adjudicating Authority was pleased to dismiss the Section 9 application filed by the 1st Respondent and resultantly, withdrew the CIRP order passed by it. Added further, subsequent to the passing of the Impugned Order dated 19.03.2021 in IA/232/CHE/2021 in IBA/81/2020 by the Adjudicating Authority an order initiating CIRP (under Section 7 of the Code) was passed on 27.04.2021, by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-II, Chennai) based on the application filed by the present Appellant/State Bank of India in IBA/45/2020 and that the 2nd Respondent was appointed as its interim Resolution Professional . This Tribunal has heard the respective contentions advanced by the Learned Counsels appearing for the parties and noticed the same. Assessment: 15. At the outset, it is pertinently pointed out that the Applicant/Interim Resolution Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
