9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andon, Mr. V. Aravind, Advocates for R - 2 JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN , J . These two Appeals have been filed by the same Appellant challenging order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi approving the Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor - Kalptaru Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. and order dated 19.11.2020 allowing the application I.A. No.2123 (PB)/2019 filed by the Resolution Professionals seeking direction to the Appellant for releasing original title deeds of the property mortgaged with the Appellant by the Corporate Debtor. 2. The Appellant - Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation has sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.7.70 Crores on 11.01.2008 and Additional Term L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 68 of 2021 has been filed against order dated 19.11.2020 by which I.A. No.2123 (PB)/2019 filed by the Resolution Professionals has been allowed. In the I.A. No.2123 (PB)/2019 following prayers have been made by the Resolution Professional: "a. Record compliance of the implementation of the approved Resolution Plan (approved vide order dated 14.02.2020) of the Corporate Debtor M/s Kalptaru Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. by the Resolution Applicant M/s Shiva Ferric Pvt. Ltd. b. Issue directions to the respondent Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (APSFC) for releasing the following original title deeds of the property mortgaged with M/s APSFC by the Corporate Debtor Kalptaru Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. I.e. the Secured Financial Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant submits that there is no error in the order approving the Resolution Plan. The objection raised by the Appellant to the Resolution Plan were disposed of by order dated 31.01.2020, which order has never been challenged by the Appellant. The Resolution Plan having approved by the CoC in its commercial wisdom the same is not justiciable. It is submitted that issue of limitation raised by the Appellant is wholly misconceived. The order initiating the CIRP was challenged by the Appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy No(s). 22842/2020 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.01.2021, hence, it is not open for the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted. There is an inordinate delay of 705 days in filing the Petition which has not been explained satisfactorily. Even otherwise, we do not find any merit in this Special Leave Petition. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 9. When the challenge to the Section 7 application filed by the Appellant on all grounds has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Appellant cannot be permitted to challenge initiation of CIRP on the ground of limitation in this Appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 68 of 2021 has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat Corporate Debtor was not a going concern, hence, there was no question of approving the Resolution Plan, also need to be rejected. In Para 52 of the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority has referred to the reply submitted by the Resolution Professional where it was mentioned that the Resolution Plan contains the provision for takeover of the Corporate Debtor as going concern and amalgamation of the Corporate Debtor with the Resolution Applicant. The Resolution Plan also contains provision for implementation of the plan through a monitoring committee. The Adjudicating Authority rightly observed that resolution is the rule and the object of the Code is to promote resolution. The Adjudicating Authority in detail considered the various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicated above. The challenge to the order initiating CIRP on Section 7 application has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition filed by the Appellant, hence, it is no more open for the Appellant to contend that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority was without jurisdiction. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi & Ors" relied by the Appellant has no application in the facts of the preset case. 15. Learned counsel for the Resolution Professional has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd. vs. Amit Metaliks Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1700 of 2021", where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
