TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e company at the behest of Ex-Promoter. Whether the Respondent No. 2 (Corporate Debtor) is a Non- Banking Financial Company (NBFC) having assets of more than Rs. 500 crores and therefore exempted from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ordered by the Adjudicating Authority? - Appellants are related parties of the suspended management as claimed by the Respondents or not - Respondents are related parties of the suspended management of the Corporate Debtor or not. Whether the Adjudicating Authority committed an error in admitting the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor - Whether, the shareholder of the Corporate Debtor has any locus in Section 7 application filed by the Financial Creditor? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, undisputedly, the 1st Respondent became Financial Creditor since the assignment was created with all requisite formalities and the Corporate Debtor has not denied the financial transaction. In such case, the Adjudicating Authority is supposed to admit Section 7 Application - It is the case of Appellant that Section 7 Application was filed by the Financial Creditor in collusion with the Corporate Debtor. After reading Section 61(1) of the I B Code ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Parasaran, Senior Advocate Mr. Parthasarathy and Mr. Rahul Balaji, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Rishi Srinivas, Advocate for R-2. JUDGMENT ( Virtual Mode ) NARESH SALECHA , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) The Present Appeals are filed against the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority [National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench] in CP. (IB) No. 11/BB/2022, whereby, the Adjudicating Authority dismissed two applications i.e. I.A. No. 86 87 of 2022 which were filed under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short I B Code, 2016). Brief Facts: 2. There are two appeals i.e CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 142 of 2022 in CP. (IB) No. 11/ BB/ 2022 and CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 174 of 2022 in CP. (IB) No. 11/ BB/ 2022. The common impugned order was issued by the Adjudicating Authority on 08.04.2022 and therefore, both the Appeals are connected and accordingly dealt with during pleadings. This Appellate Tribunal shall also examine these two Appeals in combined manner in following discussions. 3. In the Appeal No. CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 142 of 2022 in CP. (IB) No. 11/ BB/ 2022, there are nine Appellants and two Respondents. Whereas, appeals i.e CA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Dues from the Corporate Debtor. M/s Sunstar Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd. (the Financial Creditor ) therein/ Respondent No. 1 herein paid all sums outstanding of the Corporate Debtor to ZACL on 20.11.2021 and acquired rights to impose recovery from the Corporate Debtor . M/s Sunstar Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd. (the Financial Creditor ) therein/ Respondent No. 1 herein, further advanced Rs. 1,50,00,000/- as an ICD on 20.10.2021 @ 18% interest p.a to be paid back within four weeks. The Corporate Debtor however, could not make any repayment. This led M/s Sunstar Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd. (the Financial Creditor ) therein/ Respondent No. 1 herein to issue Demand Notice on 10.12.2021 and in response, the Corporate Debtor vide reply dated 15.12.2021 sought additional time to pay. 8. Mr. Nirej Vadakkedathu Paul, the 1st Appellant herein along with 8 others filed I.A. No. 86 of 2022 seeking permission to intervene in CP. (IB) 11/BB/2022 and similarly one I.A. No. 87 of 2022 also sought intervention filed by the M/s Kushal Sen Gupta and others . 9. After hearing the original CP. (IB) 11/BB/2022 along with I.A. No. 86 of 2022 and I.A. No. 87 of 2022, the Adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 1,50,000 2 Dr. TJ Leelamma 2,000 3 Ms. Litty Thomas 2,00,000 4 Ms. Sheeja T 22,222 5 M/s Equity Intelligence India Private Limited 4,20,000 6 M/s. Acacia Partners, L.P. 7,76,269 7 M/s. Acacia II Partner, L.P. 64,000 8 M/s. Acacia Institutional Partners, L.P. 4,88,709 9 M/s. Acacia Conservation Fund, L.P. 48,000 TOTAL 21,71,200 (approx. 15% share capital) 14. Learned Counsel for the Appellants assailed the conduct of the 1st Respondent, who is connivance with the 2nd Respondent, initiated illegal and fraudulent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process with mala-fide and ulterior motives. Learned Counsel for the Appellants al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these shares were transferred to the Recovery Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal -II, Bangalore leaving behind promoter shareholding of only 2.27% of the share capital of 2nd Respondent. In the year 2020-21 the 15.73% shares transferred to the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Bangalore were fully sold in the stock market. 20. Learned Counsel for the Appellants mentioned that the Corporate Debtor is primarily a Non- Banking Financial Company incorporated in Bangalore on 1st March 2004 by a Composite Scheme of Arrangement - more specifically demerger whereby the investment business of McDowell and Company Ltd. was transferred to the 2nd Respondent. 21. Learned Counsel for the Appellants stated that in October/November 2020, the 2nd Respondent appointed three Directors, namely, Mr. Theerthesh B.S., Ms. Sarvamangala Hadapada and Mr. G. Sreenivas as its Additional Directors. These appointment were to be confirmed in the Annual General Meeting held on 29.09.2021 for which e-voting was opened from 25.09.2021 to 28.09.2021, however, by 99.24% of voting, proposed appointments of all three Additional Directors were rejected on 28.09.2021 and therefore, the 2nd Respondent illegally sought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel for the Appellants further stated that during the interim period, the illegal Board of Directors entered into alleged tripartite agreement on 19.11.2021 with ZACL to defraud minority shareholders. Learned Counsel for the Appellants highlighted that the fraudulent intent of 1st 2nd Respondent became clear by observing facts that the 2nd Respondent allowed substitution/ assignment of alleged debt by ZACL by the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent undertook to pay in full by 30.11.2021 i.e. within 11 days of execution of said agreement and in immediate subsequent event, an application was filed under Section 7 of the I B Code, 2016 on 06.01.2022. According to Learned Counsel for the Appellants the entire sequence from AGM to filing of Section 7 application was orchestrated within two months, which is a classic case of blatant misuse of provision of I B Code, 2016 only to deprive economic value of 46,000 majority shareholders of the Corporate Debtor . 27. Learned Counsel for the Appellants continued arguments on fraudulence and illegal Section 7 Application alleging that by alleged debt of mere Rs. 15 crores (approx.) the Respondents are trying to take over the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellants further stated that the 2nd Respondent has an asset size of over Rs. 1000 cores, which is over threshold limit of Rs. 500 crores and therefore qualifying as a financial service provider as per Section 3(17) of the I B Code, 2016 r/w Notification dated 18.11.2019 by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Therefore, Application for initiating insolvency proceedings against the 2nd Respondent could have only been filed by the financial sector regulator i.e., Reserve Bank of India as required under Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Insolvency Liquidation Proceedings of Financial Service Providers and Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2019. 30. Learned Counsel for the Appellants mentioned that the 2nd Respondent also provided Financial Consultancy Services as can be seen Memorandum of Association of the 2nd Respondent as well Annual Report for Financial Year 2020-21 which clearly establishes that one of object of the 2nd Respondent is to provide Financial Advisory and Subsidiary Services . Learned Counsel for the Appellants also stated that the notes to the Financial Statements mentioned clearly that the company had obtained Registration from RBI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... volte face and very clearly demonstrate malicious intentions and acting hands in gloves with the 1st Respondent at the behest of Ex- promotes Mr. Vijay Mallya. 35. Learned Counsel for the Appellants stated that on 06.07.2022 the Appellants wrote to the Resolution Professional making an offer of upfront payment of Rs. 16,30,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft to settle the entire claims of the Committee of Creditors and promised to settle the remaining amount within one month of acceptance of settlement. Learned Counsel for the Appellants further stated that as per settlement proposal, 100% of admitted claims of both the Financial Creditors , namely, the 1st Respondent and M/s Pixie amounting to Rs. 18,65,17,601/-, were to be satisfied and the proposal was supported by almost 45% of shareholders of the Corporate Debtor . Learned Counsel for the Appellants stated that the Committee of Creditors however, did not accept the proposal which demonstrated that the Committee of Creditors were acting with ulterior motives without any intention for resolution and recovering of money of their debts. 36. Learned Counsel for the Appellants referred to the judgment of the Hon ble S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... producing evidence to establish the illegality in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process . 40. Learned Counsel for the Appellants stated that they are person aggrieved by the fraudulent and collusive attempt of the 1st Respondent to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in relation to the 2nd Respondent, as Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process would reduce the value of their shareholding to a throw away prices. This will not only affects the present Appellants but also 47,000 other shareholders of the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent colluding with the 1st Respondent on the other hand, would avail the benefit of Section 32-A of the I B Code, 2016 to remove the attachment on the assets of the 2nd Respondent and gain assets worth over Rs. 1000 crores and retain control of the 2nd Respondent. 41. Learned Counsel for the Appellants also cited judgment of this Appellate Tribunal in the matter of Reliance Commercial Finance Limited vs. Darode Jog Builder Private Limited in CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 1005 of 2022 dated 19.09.2022, wherein this Appellate Tribunal held that if the Corporate Debtor is willing to pay the entire amount, the Financial Creditor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elled the 1st Appellant to initiate Section 7 application. 48. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent mentioned that the debt due and non-payment of the same are undisputed facts and the 2nd Respondent has clearly acknowledged the liability for payment at various places in the financial statements of the 2nd Respondent. 49. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent gave the background of accumulation of debts. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent briefed that the 2nd Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with ZACL and MCFL on 17.06.2019 w.r.t. one ICD from ZFCL . Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent further briefed that as per this settlement agreement, the 2nd Respondent was to make all the payment on or before 16.12.2020 which included sum of Rs. 10,60,56,810/- along with interest being outstanding of ICD amount. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent elaborated the details of two tranches i.e. the first tranche by way of sale and transfer of shares of the Corporate Debtor in MCFL to ZACL and the second tranche was by procuring release of shares of United Breweries Limited and amounts realized from the sale of shares of United Breweries Limited. Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reviewed comprehensively and thereafter decided to initiate a proceeding under Section 7 of the I B Code, 2016. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent emphasised that all money were paid in good faith and as per normal commercial practice and took the steps of Section 7 application only after realising NIL chances of recovery. 53. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent strongly objected to the present appeal filed by the Appellants being non maintainable at the first place. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that the Appellants herein, are only shareholders and by law shareholders cannot maintain derivative actions. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent assailed the conduct of the Appellants who purchased shares in recent past knowing fully well that outstanding debts of the 2nd Respondent reflected in the financial statements. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent tried to question genuine intention of the Appellants for acquiring shares even with knowledge that the assets of the 2nd Respondent i.e. shares in certain company are under attachment. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent also alleged that the Appellants have come with unclean hands and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present appeal for grant of stay on the ground that the Appellants are ready to deposit the amount payable to the Financial Creditor by the 2nd Respondent. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent pointed out that this is also not maintainable in an application filed under Section 7 of the I B Code, 2016 and such outsiders cannot be allowed to deviate I B Code provisions. 60. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that there is no provision under I B Code, 2016 or under the Companies Act, 2013 which allows shareholders to directly deposit the money on behalf of the Company/ Corporate Debtor to settle dues with financial creditor. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent also mentioned that there are no such precedents or judicial judgements to support wrongful suggestions of the Appellants . Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent further stated that the once the Resolution Plan is approved, it takes care in interest of all the stakeholder including the Appellant herein and furthermore the Appellants are free to take legal remedies as permissible under concerned law rather than abusing the provisions of I B Code, 2016. 61. Learned Counsel for the 1s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e DRAT during the period of moratorium, which is entirely different from the facts in the present appeal. 64. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that all other cases cited by the Appellants are not relevant and applicable in the present appeal. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent further submitted that the present appeal is filed under Section 61 of the I B Code. 2016 where the Appellants claiming to be an aggrieved person, has to show how the Appellant has been aggrieved in respect of the specific circumstances of the case to maintain a derivative action, which the Appellants have miserably failed to do. 65. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent alleged that the intention of the Appellants is to derail the process of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process which has resulted into approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors . Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent further stated that in guise of buying some shares in the recent past knowing well that the property of the Corporate Debtor is under attachment, the Appellants have devised an illegal and fraudulent method of taking over reins of the Corporate Debtor and taki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in his own name and 6,95,484 shares through Padrone Marketing Private Limited during Financial Year 2019-20. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent termed such acquisitions as a concerted plan by the Erstwhile Promoters to avoid any scrutiny. 68. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent further submitted that Mr. Ajay Gaggar also acquired 6,95,000 shares during 2019-20 from close relatives the Taparias who owns Famy Care Private Limited which funded Rs. 5 crores out of Rs. 16.3 cores deposit offered by the Appellants . Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent further submitted that interestingly the said company does not hold any shares in the Corporate Debtors company. 69. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent emphasised that similar pattern of unhealthy acquisition of shares has been resorted by other shareholders also and to prove this point, Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted the details of acquisition of shares made by the parties the settlement proposal in form of a chart along with Chart showing inter-se relationship between the Appellants and that they are persons acting in concert which is Chart showing links between few Appellants/ Persons propo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Debt and Default by the Corporate Debtor on the first date of hearing itself, collusive lending of money by the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent, short period of repayment aggrieved by the 2nd Respondent etc. are only afterthought, fabricated, frivolous and without any basis. 73. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent strongly refuted the allegations of the Appellants that the 1st Respondent is insisting on Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in order to take over the management of the Corporate Debtor and the landing to the 2nd Respondent was collusive in nature. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent brought out that the Committee of Creditor has already considered five Resolution Plans and has approved Resolution Plan of Phoenix Theme Infra Projects LLP in their meeting held on 19.10.2022 in accordance with Regulation 18 and 19 of IBBI and the same is pending before the Adjudicating Authority for approval in I.A No, 399 of 2022 in CP (IB)/ 11/2022. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent further stated that it is a settled law that the Financial Creditor i.e. the 1st Respondent herein is only entitled to its contractual determination dues and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e. Famy Care Private Limited is not connected to any of the proceeding and also not shareholder of the Corporate Debtor has been roped into so-called settlement proposal . 77. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent further stated that all these lead to conclusion that the Appellants are working at the behest of Erstwhile Promoter- Mr. Vijay Mallya who is seeking back door entry to take control of the company. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that for arguments sake, even if the I B Code, 2016 has provision to allow shareholder to offer such settlement proposals, still it could have been seen as tainted proposal and indirectly proposed by Erstwhile Promoter- Mr. Vijay Mallya who is under investigation by several agencies. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that on the contrary the I B Code, 2016 in transparent and dignified manner facilitate chance to all to participate in Resolution Plan and once it is approved by the Adjudicating Authority the Respondent will get their claims settled as per approved Resolution Plan . 78. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that if the Appellants are so interested to take part in the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eregistered as NBFC by RBI on 11.12.2017 and subsequently the Corporate Debtor was reclassified as CIC (exempted in category) due to the fact that the Corporate Debtor was holding strategic investments in the UB Group of Companies. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent clarified that after the attachment of shares and consequently sale of such shares by DRT Bangalore, there is no strategic holding by the Corporate Debtor . Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that in any case, the RBI vide letter dated 25.10.2021 asked the Corporate Debtor to examine the applicability of CIC directions 2016. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent emphasised that the said letter do not give any directions to the Corporate Debtor to get itself registered as CIC . Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that it made clear the Corporate Debtor is not a NBFC . 82. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent further submitted that the primary requirement for a company to be a CIC is to hold such strategic investments in group companies. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that the Corporate Debtor does not fall under the ambit of any of the arrangements ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016. 86. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent summarised his pleadings and mentioned that the present application is not maintainable and even on merits its liable to be dismissed. Findings 87. Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondents and also perused record made available to us. Several issues have been raised in the Appeals which are required to be deliberated upon before coming to final conclusion. (I) (a) Whether the Adjudicating Authority committed an error in admitting the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor And (b) Whether, the shareholder of the Corporate Debtor has any locus in Section 7 application filed by the Financial Creditor . (II) Whether, the shareholders can make payment to satisfy financial debt of financial creditor in order to take away the Corporate Debtor from the clutches of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process . (III) Whether the Respondent No. 2 ( Corporate Debtor ) is a Non- Banking Financial Company ( NBFC ) having assets of more than Rs. 500 crores and therefore exempted from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ordered by the Adjudicating Authority . (IV) Whether, such cases of N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nance or capital lease under the Indian Accounting Standards or such other accounting standards as may be prescribed; (e) receivables sold or discounted other than any receivables sold on non-recourse basis; (f) any amount raised under any other transaction, including any forward sale or purchase agreement, having the commercial effect of a borrowing. 1[Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause, (i) any amount raised from an allottee under a real estate project shall be deemed to be an amount having the commercial effect of a borrowing; and (ii) the expressions, allottee and real estate project shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clauses (d) and (zn) of section 2 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (16 of 2016);] (g) any derivative transaction entered into in connection with protection against or benefit from fluctuation in any rate or price and for calculating the value of any derivative transaction, only the market value of such transaction shall be taken into account; (h) any counter-indemnity obligation in respect of a guarantee, indemnity, bond, documentary letter of credit or any other instru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity is satisfied that (a) a default has occurred and the application under sub-section (2) is complete, and there is no disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed resolution professional, it may, by order, admit such application; or (b) default has not occurred or the application under sub-section (2) is incomplete or any disciplinary proceeding is pending against the proposed resolution professional, it may, by order, reject such application: Provided that the Adjudicating Authority shall, before rejecting the application under clause (b) of sub-section (5), give a notice to the applicant to rectify the defect in his application within seven days of receipt of such notice from the Adjudicating Authority. (6) The corporate insolvency resolution process shall commence from the date of admission of the application under sub-section (5). (7) The Adjudicating Authority shall communicate (a) the order under clause (a) of sub-section (5) to the financial creditor and the corporate debtor; (b) the order under clause (b) of sub-section (5) to the financial creditor, within seven days of admission or rejection of such application, as the case may be. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt of the application, ascertain the existence of default and where the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the default has occurred and application is complete, admit such application and Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process shall commence from the date of such admission of the application. ➢ According to scheme under Section 7, the Adjudicating Authority is not required to look into other criteria for admission. ➢ As per Section 5 (7) of the I B Code, 2016, Financial Creditor , means any person to whom the financial debt is owed and includes a person to whom such a debt is legally assigned or transferred. Where an assignment agreement legally assigns the impugned debt to a person, such a person becomes a financial creditor within a meaning of Section 5(7) of the I B Code, 2016. In such case, the assignee steps into the shoes of the Financial Creditor and as such he is entitled to the reliefs as available in the I B Code, 2016. ➢ In the present case, undisputedly, the 1st Respondent became Financial Creditor since the assignment was created with all requisite formalities and the Corporate Debtor has not denied the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is the settled principle of law that in an Application U/s. 7 of the Code, there is no place for any third party other than the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor. The Shareholders of the Financial Creditor or of the Corporate Debtor in their capacity as a shareholder have no locus standi to get themselves impleaded in the C.P. filed U/s.7 of the IBC, 2016. If any Shareholder of the Financial Creditor or the Corporate Debtor have any grievances with regard to the representation of the Company in the C.P., they can agitate their rights as Shareholders under the applicable provision of the Companies Act, 2013 but cannot be allowed to be impleaded or intervened in the C.P. This Adjudicating Authority, while exercising summary jurisdiction such as Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, cannot adjudicate the disputes, if any, inter se, between the Shareholders or Directors of the Corporate Debtor, Accordingly, both the Interlocutory Applications are dismissed. (emphasis supplied) ➢ It is the case of the Appellants that being shareholders , if Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is allowed to continue their financial interest will be adversely affected and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the notice of this Appellate Tribunal one judgment of Delhi High Court on derivative action on behalf of the Corporate Debtor under I B Code, 2016. In the case of ICP Investments v. Uppal Housing, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 12371, following has been recorded in the judgment :- 18. The IRP appointed with respect to Umang, under the law having powers/authorities as aforesaid, I have wondered about the maintainability of a derivative action on behalf of Umang. 20. It is felt that once the affairs of the Umang are taken over by an IRP, the Directors of Umang can no longer be blamed for not taking the requisite steps to seek redress for the wrong if any done to Umang, and a derivative action by plaintiff, as a majority shareholder, for the benefit of Umang would not be maintainable. The plaintiff now has to approach the IRP for taking action against Uppal and it is the IRP who has to, if finds any merit in the grievance of the plaintiff, take appropriate remedy on behalf of Umang. Moreover, if the plaintiff remains dissatisfied with the decision of IRP, has remedy before the NCLT. 22. I must however note that the aforesaid cases involved a company which was at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... solution Process of the Corporate Debtor , once the debt due and default is established by the Adjudicating Authority , in an application made by the Financial Creditor filed under Section 7 of the I B Code, 2016 before the Adjudicating Authority . ➢ Moreover, there is no law which allows a third-party to settle the claims of the Financial Creditor on behalf of the Corporate Debtor , more so without any consent of the Corporate Debtor and in the teeth of opposition by the Financial Creditor . The Appellants could not produce any precedents in this regard. ➢ Theoretically, even a person aggrieved by the impugned order challenges admission of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process , it is not going to resolve the issues under any relevant law and the whole exercise with such appeal become futile, purposeless and will only cause delay in resolution, for which the Resolution Plan has already been approved by the Committee of Creditors and is under consideration of the Adjudicating Authority . ➢ We also take into account the judgment of this Appellate Tribunal wherein, it was held that the no direction can be given to any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A wide variety of investment vehicles exist to accomplish goals, including (but not limited to) stocks, bonds, commodities, mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), options, futures, foreign exchange, gold, silver, retirement plans, and real estate. Investors can analyze opportunities from different angles, and generally prefer to minimize risk while maximizing returns. Investors typically generate returns by deploying capital as either equity or debt investments. Equity investments entail ownership stakes in the form of company stock that may pay dividends in addition to generating capital gains. Debt investments may be as loans extended to other individuals or firms, or in the form of purchasing bonds issued by governments or corporations which pay interest in the form of coupons. (emphasis supplied) ➢ Therefore, a shareholder is also technically speaking an investor / owner , who owns limited investment in the company to the extent of share capital subscribed by him. Therefore, the judgement of Anant Kajare (Supra) is applicable in the present appeal as discussed in preceding paragraphs. ➢ This Appellate Tribunal carefully examined th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
