9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent No.1 : Mr. M.S. Krishnan, Senior Advocate For the Mr. Anirudh Krishnan, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. P.S. Raman, Senior Advocate For the Respondent No.3 : Mrs. Mummaneni Vazra Laxmi, Advocate For the Respondent No.4 : Mr. Shivakumar & Mr. Suresh, Advocates. ORDER (Virtual Mode) Justice M. Venugopal, Member (Judicial) : The Petitioner/Bank has preferred the instant `Interlocutory Application No.450 of 2021 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 215 of 2021 (under Rule 31 of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016) seeking to implead the `Applicant' as `Respondent No. 4' in main Company `Appeal'. 2. According to the Learned Counsel for the `Applicant/ICICI Bank Ltd.', the Rs. 4th Respondent / Interim Resol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.61 3.11 UCO 0.10 0.01 0.24 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.36 0.40 2.04 Total 4.73 0.88 9.63 1.93 0.12 2.27 17.16 19.57 100 5. It is represented on behalf of the `Applicant/Bank' that the Rs. 3rd Respondent' had created the undermentioned `Securities' on `Pari-passu' basis among the said `Lenders' including the `Applicant', which runs as under: Security for Term Loan: * First pari - passu charge on fixed assets (list of properties in annexure-I) * First pari - passu charge on current assets * First pari-passu charge on pledge of 19.46% of promoter's NFCL shares * Class III Mr. K.S. Raju (net worth - Rs. 160 Mn) * Class III Mr. K. Rahul Raju (net worth Rs. 11.74 Mn as on January 2017) Security for Working Capital: * W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Petition before the `Adjudicating Authority' (NCLT, Hyderabad) for initiation of `CIRP' proceedings against the Rs. 3rd Respondent', due to its failure to pay nearly Rs. 14.00 Crores in an `International Arbitration' initiated by the Rs. 2nd Respondent'. Indeed, the `Arbitration Proceeding' had reached its finality and that the Rs. 3rd Respondent' had not settled the dues of the Rs. 2nd Respondent'. In the `Appeal' and in counter filed by the Rs. 3rd Respondent' before the `Adjudicating Authority' the 3rd Respondent took a stand that the 2nd Respondent had secured an `Order of Attachment' in the `Execution Proceedings', in respect of the monies lying in the `Bank Accounts' of the Rs. 3rd Respondent'. By means of the said `Attachment' t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt'. 10. The Learned Counsel for the `Applicant/Bank' submits that no prejudice will be caused to `any party', in the event of `Impleading Application' I.A.No. 450 of 2021 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No.215 of 2021 is allowed by this `Tribunal' and prays for allowing the `Impleading Application', to promote substantial cause of justice. 11. Conversely, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Rs. 1st Respondent' that the `Applicant/Bank' is not a `proper/necessary party' to the present proceedings, because they have not yet approached the `Adjudicating Authority', to have their claims verified and has straightaway approached this `Tribunal' to have its claim verified, which is quite contra to the ingredients of the `I & B Code ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt of Telengana in EX. EP. No. 3 of 2017 and that the `Special Leave Petition' came up for hearing on 24.09.2021 and the same is pending. 16. The Learned Counsel for the Rs. 1st Respondent' points out that the `Applicant/Bank' has filed CP (IB) No.278 of 2022 before the `Adjudicating Authority' (`National Company Law Tribunal', Bench - II, Hyderabad), against the `Corporate Debtor' and the same is pending. 17. The Learned Counsel for the Rs. 1st Respondent' comes out with an argument that the `Applicant/Bank' had not filed necessary applications to `implead' itself either before the proceedings filed before the Hon'ble High Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In reality, the `I & B Code', 2016, prevents the parties from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g facts and circumstances in a conspectus fashion and keeping in mind that the `Applicant/Bank' has not filed appropriate `Application' to get itself `impleaded' either before the Hon'ble High Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, comes to a consequent conclusion that in a `subject matter' pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No.9252 of 2020, the `Applicant/Bank' is to wait for the final determination of the `Hon'ble Supreme Court of India', or to take necessary steps to `implead' itself before the `Competent Forum', if it so desires / advised. Viewed in this perspective, this `Tribunal' without any haziness, holds that the `Applicant/Bank' is not entitled to file I.A.No.450 of 2021 in Comp. App (AT) (CH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
