9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant to the issue in question, are as follows: 1) Initially, C.P. (IB)No. 154/BB/2017 filed by State Bank of India (Petitioner/Operational Creditor) against Deepak Cables (India) Limited (Corporate Debtor), was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority, vide its Order dated 23.8.2018 by initiating CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor, appointing Shri R.S. Devarakonda as IRP, imposing moratorium etc. Subsequently, Liquidation proceedings were initiated vide order dated 04.07.2019 passed in I.A. No. 270 of 2019 filed by earlier RP, U/s 33(1) of the Code, by appointing the Applicant as Liquidator. Pursuant to his appointment, the Applicant invited claims by issuing public announcement. Accordingly, the Applicant received claims to the tune of Rs. 1,623 Crores from the Financial Creditors, a sum of Rs. 1,149 Crores from the Operational Creditors, a sum of Rs. 8.94 Crores from the Employee/Workmen. The Applicant has also filed status reports quarterly. Further, the Secured Creditors surrendered the security interest in favour of the Liquidator and he has taken steps for sale of the secured assets. 2) The Applicant issued an advertisement for e-auction of the immovable properties, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tors are public sector banks. 5) It is alleged that the Respondent is not cooperating with the Liquidator for the past 20 days and the Liquidator will not be in a position to handle the cases on his own unless appropriate inputs are given by the Respondent, the Promoter Director. Further the Applicant also addressed a letter on 10.08.2020 to the authorized officers of all public sector banks, who are the secured creditors of the Corporate Debtor bringing to their notice the non-cooperation by the Respondent and the finding of the forensic audit report. Further, also requested the Banks to take steps for issuing a look out notice obstructing the borrower from fleeing the country on the basis of the press note dated 24.07.2019 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. 6) It is alleged that Respondent is attempting to leave the jurisdiction of this Tribunal with no intention of coming back and the same will cause prejudice to the interest of the secured financial creditors and other stake holders. Hence the applications. 3. Heard Shri T. Ravichandran, Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant and Shri A. Murali, Learned Counsel for the Respondent, through Video Conference. We have c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter to 07.10.2020 since the learned Counsel has accepted notice for the Respondent and requested time to file a reply. Aggrieved by the said order of the Adjudicating Authority, the Applicant preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) vide CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 748 of 2020, which was disposed of by an order dated 03.09.2020, which reads as under: "After hearing Mr. T. Ravichandran, learned Counsel for the Appellant, we find that there being no judgment rendered on merit, the instant appeal would not be maintainable. However, we take note of the grievance projected by him that the matter has been unnecessarily protracted in utter disregard of the timelines prescribed by the 'I&B Code'. In the given circumstances, we dispose of the instant appeal with the direction to the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Bengaluru Bench to dispose of the matter with utmost expedition. The hearing is slated for 07th October, 2020. Same be concluded expeditiously and if it spills over, the matter be taken up on day to day basis and disposed of expeditiously The appeal stands disposed of." Accordingly, the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of law that all the concerned people, which includes Directors/MD, in respect of the affairs of the Corporate Debtor, and Managing Directors are required to extend co-operation to IRP/RP/Liquidator. The Applicant himself states in the Application that the Respondent was extending cooperation to him except for the last 20 (twenty) days, which is nothing but un-tenable contention/allegation made for the reasons best known to him. It (sic) goes without saying that the Respondent is under legal obligation to extend his co-operation. 9. So far as second issue is concerned, the presence of Respondent is not required before the Adjudicating Authority, but may be required before Arbitral Authorities. And Arbitral Authorities, by law have judicial powers to ensure witness in the case pending before them. It is relevant to point out here that proceedings pending here are only liquidation proceedings, wherein presence of Respondent is not required. It is for the Applicant to initiate Criminal proceedings against the Respondent, if circumstances so warrant and thus seek appropriate relief which include to prohibit the Respondent to leave the Country. It is not the case of Applicant that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
