9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Code, 2016, seeking relief as follows; i. To pass appropriate order directing the Respondent, who is in possession of the movable properties of the CD, as the erstwhile landlord of the CD's old office, to cooperate with the company Liquidator, in collection of information about the movable assets which is in their physical possession and custody, so as to enable him to sell them in accordance with law; ii. To permit the Company Liquidator to sell the movable assets of the CD as per the lists given in the Minutes of the 1st CoC meeting dated 25.04.2019 by private sale; iii. To pass any other order or direction or grant any other relief in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. 3. In relation to IA/507/CHE/2021, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that on 11.03.2021, this Tribunal, without the presence of the Respondent viz. Ms. T. Sundaravel in MA/54/2020 had passed the following order. "None appears on the part of Petitioner. Ld. Liquidator Mr. Ashok Seshadri is present through video conferencing mode. None appears for the Respondent. Ld. Liquidator submits that the Respondent is landlord of the premises which was taken by the Corporate D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... listed at Page No. 26 typed set filed along with the Application from the premises. The Liquidator to appraise this Tribunal about the development based on which the relief sought for in the Application can be taken up by this Tribunal. Post this matter on 15.04.2021. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Respondent has filed IA/507/CHE/2021 to set aside the order passed by this Tribunal on 11.03.2021 in the absence of the Respondent. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that he has filed a detailed counter objecting to the jurisdiction of the Liquidator to maintain the MA/54/2020 before this Tribunal. It was further submitted that pursuant to the counter filed by the Respondent, the case was adjourned to 09.03.2020, on that day, the Respondent counsel argued partly. However, this Tribunal had posted the matter to 16.03.2020 for arguments of both counsels. Thereafter due to Covid-19 pandemic and consequent lockdown imposed by the State/Central Government, the matter was not listed till the month of January 2021. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Applicant further submitted that he could not contact the office of this Tribunal on 15.03.2021, by that time, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larly, it is required to be noted that the NCLT Rules 2016 do not contain any powers similar to Review/Recall the order passed by this Tribunal. Further as held by the Hon'ble NCLAT Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 is not a 'substantive rule' which confers any power or jurisdiction on the Tribunal. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid Judgement cited supra, which clearly states that NCLT has no power to recall/review its own order the IA/507/CHE/2021 is not maintainable and accordingly stands dismissed. 7. In relation to MA/54/2020, it is seen that the Applicant/Liquidator has filed the said Application seeking directions against the Respondent, who is in possession of the movable properties of the Corporate Debtor and to cooperate with the company Liquidator, in collection of information about the movable assets which are in their physical possession and custody, so as to enable the Liquidator to sell them. 8. It is seen that the CIRP in relation to the Corporate Debtor was ordered by this Tribunal vide Order dated 26.03.2019 passed in CP/1210/(IB)/2018 and the Applicant herein was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional. Pursuant to the same, the IRP had taken ov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Debtor and she was being represented by one Shri Gouthaman, her son. It was submitted that despite the efforts of the Liquidator to persuade the Respondent through her son, the Liquidator could not take a valuer to the premises for assessment of the value of the assets. In support of his contention the Liquidator relied upon an email Communication dated 22.11.2019. Further, the Liquidator apprehends that any further delay will result in further deterioration of the value of the assets. 12. Hence, it was decided in the stakeholders meeting held on 21.11.2019, that all the available movable assets like furniture and computers etc kept in the two locations be disposed of by private sale so as to realize the maximum value of the said assets. 13. The Respondent has filed the Counter and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the very initiation of the CIRP by the Operational Creditor against the Corporate Debtor Viz. M/s. Adept Technology Private Limited is nothing but collusion in order to defraud the other Operational Creditors, Financial Creditors, statutory and others dues. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent further alleged that the IRP who has got administr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... para 3 of the application. In para 3, Canara Bank, Dutch Bank have shown as secured financial creditors, but admittedly it is bereft of particulars about the security details. Hence, the Respondent sought for the dismissal of the present application which has been filed by the Applicant/Resolution Professional. 17. Heard the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both the parties. In so far as the merits of the case are concerned, this Tribunal already vide its order dated 11.03.2021 has directed the Respondent to hand over voluntarily forthwith the items as listed at Page No. 26 of the typed set filed along with the present Application within a period of two weeks' from the date of the order, failing which, the Liquidator was directed to take assistance from the Police Station concerned in this regard for the implementation of the Order on the part of the Respondent. 18. However, from the facts narrated above, it is seen that the Corporate Debtor is under Liquidation and it necessary to set right the legal position as on the 'Liquidation Estate' of the Corporate Debtor. Sec. 36 of IBC, 2016 deals with the Liquidation Estate of the Corporate Debtor which is extr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on with any financial sector regulator; (b) assets in security collateral held by financial services providers and are subject to netting and set-off in multilateral trading or clearing transactions; (c) personal assets of any shareholder or partner of a corporate debtor as the case may be provided such assets are not held on account of avoidance transactions that may be avoided under this Chapter; (d) assets of any Indian or foreign subsidiary of the corporate debtor; or (e) any other assets as may be specified by the Board, including assets which could be subject to set-off on account of mutual dealings between the corporate debtor and any creditor. 19. It is seen that the movable assets, which are kept in the old premise at Cathedral Road, Chennai, are still in the custody of the Ms. Sundaravel T, the Respondent herein and that the Respondent refuses the Liquidator to value the said assets. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the Respondent had filed claims in Form-C before the liquidator for a sum of Rs. 27,21,744/- by attaching the lease agreement and rent working in order to substantiate the claim. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that once the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
