9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... karan Singh Bhatia, Advocate for R1. Mr. Bindu Bhatia, Advocate for RP. ORDER (Through Virtual Mode) Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1. 2. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant- Shareholder of 'Sapphire Land Development Pvt. Ltd.', the 'Principal Borrower' against the impugned order dated 30th April, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench) in CP No. 987 of 2020 which was filed by the Respondent No.1- 'Financial Creditor' under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("I&B Code" for short). The issue involved in this Appeal is with regard to parallel proceeding filed against the 'Principal Borrower' when already Corpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Dr. Vishnu Kumar Agarwal v. M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. [Company Appeal No. 346 of 2018 dated 8th January 2019] (herein after referred to as "Piramal"). The Petitioner has sought to rely without placing on record the judgment passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT in the case of State Bank of India v. Athena Energy Ventures Pvt. Ltd. [Company Appeal No. 633 of 2020 dated 24th November 2020] (hereinafter referred to as "Athena"). For the reasons which will be discussed below, it is the legal submission of the Respondent that Athena, which takes a contrary view to the earlier Coordinate Bench in the case of Piramal, is a per incuriam judgment and the same is not binding to the present Hon'ble Tribunal as per the following Constitutional Bench ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne through the record and having heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant at the stage of admission of Appeal and having gone through the judgment in the matter of "State Bank of India v. Athena Energy Ventures Pvt. Ltd." which distinguished judgment in the matter of "Dr. Vishnu Kumar Agarwal v. M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd." so as to not follow the same, it must be said that the Appeal does not have any substance with regard to the legal issue. Judgment in the matter of Athena Energy was not per incurian. The judgment interpreted the law consciously not following 'M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd.'. In fact, one need not look at both the judgments and simply reproduce Section 60(2) of the 'I&B Code' as it now exists. Section 60(2) reads as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
