9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Court-I, Mumbai Bench, in IA Nos.111/2021, 1418/2021, 2562/2021 and 2577/2021 filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA). Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor- 'Ruchi Soya Industries Limited' by order dated 08.12.2017. The facts and issues in all these Appeals are similar, however, we need to notice few facts in each Appeals separately. 2. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 68 of 2022, a notice dated 24.05.2018 was issued by the Respondent No.1- Joint Commissioner of Labour and Cess Assessment Officer inter alia stating that the Appellant had undertaken construction work for an estimated cost of construction of Rs.77,30,030/- and failed to pay the 1% cess on the same. In response to the above, the Appellant sent a demand draft of Rs.77,300/-. In the CIRP, Resolution Plan was submitted by 'Patanjali Consortium' which was approved by the Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 24.07.2019 / 04.09.2019. Letter dated 26.08.2020 was received from Respondent No.1 claiming that a sum of Rs.76,52,730/- was outstanding which was asked to be paid within seven days. A show-cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Notification dated 31.07.2001 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Application was disposed of by common order dated 03.12.2021. 6. We have heard Shri Jayant K Mehta, Sr. Advocate and Shri Kunal Vaishnav, Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Shri T. Kanaka Raju, Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Vjaywada has appeared in person for Respondent in Company Appeal (AT) No. 68 of 2022. We have also heard Shri Satish Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Respondents in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.69 of 2022 and Shri Vijay Joshi, Learned Counsel for the Respondents in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.71 of 2022. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.70 of 2022, no one has appeared for the Respondents despite service. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that after approval of the Resolution Plan, all claims of Operational Creditors and other claimants including statutory authorities stood extinguished. By IAs filed before the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellant has challenged the notices and demands issued by the Respondents with regard to dues prior to Insolvency Commencement Date which do not survive after approval of the Resolution Plan. The Adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69 and 71 of 2022 contain similar issue of facts and law. We first need to notice the prayers which was sought by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority in I.A 1418 of 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68 of 2022). The Appellant has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 26.08.2020, 10.11.2020 and 20.03.2021/ or any other letter/ notice relating to the alleged cess payable for the construction of Oil Palm Division in Ampapuram Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna. The challenge in the Application was labour cess which was demanded by the Respondent. By order dated 26.08.2020 amount of Rs.76,52,730/- as labour cess was demanded. In the Rejoinder, it has been brought on record that the aforesaid cess relate to period 2009 to 2010. 13. Similarly in I.A 2562/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 69 of 2022), the prayer was made to quash and set aside the order dated 27.08.2020 by which demand was raised as noted above. The aforesaid demand, as noted above, was for the period 2013 to 2015. 14. In I.A 2577/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 71 of 2022), similarly the Commissioner of Central Tax, after demand notice, has issued a letter confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecember 2019 issued by Respondent No. 2 (on behalf of Respondent No. 1) to the Applicant bearing reference no. Tenancy/T-2/M/s. Ruchi Soya Inds./ 12858/2019 dated 11.12.2019 (Exhibit "D") and restrain the Respondents from taking any steps or in the alternative any coercive steps including repossession of any land or modification of land records, in furtherance thereof; d) For costs; and e) Any other reliefs that this Hon'ble tribunal may deem appropriate." 16. In the above I.A reference was made to notices issued to the Appellant for violation of Section 63 (1-A) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. Last notice was issued on 11.12.2019 and the proceedings has not yet been culminated. In the IA, there was no imposition of fine or financial claim rather proceeding was initiated alleging breach of the statutory provisions. 17. Learned Counsel for the Appellant in all the Appeals except Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 70 of 2022 submits that since the claims which are now sought to be realised from the Appellant relate to the period prior to the CIRP dues, the said claim stand extinguished by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ghanshyam Mishra & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the "NCLT") in respect of the present appellant under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "IBC"). The application of the Standard Chartered Bank under Section 7 of the IBC for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as the "CIRP") came to be admitted by the learned Adjudicating Authority on 15th December, 2017. After the procedure, as required under the various provisions of the IBC was completed, an application under Section 30 (6) of the IBC came to be filed by the Resolution Professional for the grant of approval of the Resolution Plan of the successful Resolution Applicant. Vide order dated 24th July, 2019 read with order dated 04th September, 2019, the application of the Resolution Professional for the grant of approval of the Resolution Plan of the successful Resolution Applicant came to be allowed. As such, the management of the appellant came to be vested in the successful Resolution Applicant. The short point that is involved is as to whether the claim of the present respondent which was admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The amount deposited by the appellant at the time of admission of the appeals along with interest accrued thereon is directed to be refunded to the appellant. The appeals are allowed, accordingly. Pending I.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 20. The Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd." and "Ghanshyam Mishra & Ors." (supra) fully covers the issues which have been raised in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69 and 71 of 2022. We are of the view that the Applications filed by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority being IA Nos.1418 of 2021, 2562 of 2021 and 2577 of 2021 deserves to be allowed and the Adjudicating Authority had not adverted to the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as noted above, that after approval of the Resolution Plan, all claims which have not been filed in the CIRP and are not part of the Resolution Plan stand extinguished. 21. From the facts brought on the record, it is clear that the Respondents in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69 and 71 of 2022 have not filed any claim in the CIRP. Thus, after approval of the Resolution Plan, they can neither press any claim nor issue any demand notice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dl. Collector, Raigad
Alibaug
Copy to: Tahasildar Alibaug
Two copies of Notice send along with this delivered one copy to party and acknowledgement copy send to this office urgently
Sd/-
For Addl. Collector, Raigad Alibaug"
23. The last notice was issued on 11.12.2019 by the Additional Collector i.e. subsequent to closure of the CIRP. The proceedings initiated under Section 63 (1-A) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 could very well be proceeded with and cannot be subject matter of the insolvency process. The facts of the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 70 of 2022 are fully covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. (03.12.2019 - SC) : MANU/SC/1661/2019". We, thus, are of the view that IA 111/2021 filed by the Appellant against the Additional Collector and Tehsildar deserves to be rejected. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 70 of 2022 is disposed of while rejecting IA No. 111/2021.
24. In result, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69 & 71 of 2022 are allowed and Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 71 of 2022 is disposed of as above. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
