9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er', dated 12/05/2023 in IA/361/IB/2020 in C.P.(IB)/540(CHE)/2017, (being the correct number of main Company Petition, before the 'Adjudicating Authority' and not CP/889/(CHE)/2019, mentioned in the 'Order' assailed before this 'Tribunal') passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench - II, Chennai'. Earlier, the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench - II, Chennai', while passing the Impugned Order in IA/361/IB/2020 in C.P.(IB)/540(CHE)/2017, dated 12/05/2023 (filed by the 'Appellant'/ 'Petitioner' under Section 60(5) of the I&B Code, 2016) at Paragraphs Nos. 11-13 had observed the following: "11. Given the factual matrix, it is to be noted that the applicant w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d admitted its position as Unsecured Financial Creditor." and ultimately, had not entertained the said 'Application' and 'dismissed' the same, but 'without Costs'. Prelude : At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the 'Appellant', fairly points out, before this 'Tribunal', that the 'Correct Number of Company Petition', is C.P.(IB)/540/(CHE)/2017, on the file of the 'Adjudicating Authority'/ 'National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench - II, Chennai' and the C.P.(IB)/IB/889/(CHE)/2019, mentioned in the Impugned Order is not a Correct one for which the Learned Counsel for the Appellant had given a 'letter' to the 'Adjudicating Authority'/ 'Tribunal', dated 06/06/2023, to rectify the creeping in of error, which is an inadvertent one. Hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... secured Financial Creditor', although a combined reading of the definitions in Section 3(27) (30) & (31), read with Sections 5(7) and 5(8) of the 'I&B Code, 2016', the 'Appellant'/ 'Petitioner' is demonstrably and undoubtedly a 'Secured Financial Creditor' It is brought to the fore on behalf of the 'Respondent' by the Learned Counsel for the 'Respondent', Mr. Pradeep Joy that in the instant case, the 'Committee of Creditors' had approved the 'Resolution Plan' on 11/06/2019, and that the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal' had approved the Resolution Plan on 27/06/2019 and that the Resolution Plan got implemented on 31/03/2020 and by virtue of the Plan being implemented and before that when the 'Resolution Plan' came to be approved, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2019 filed before the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal', the 'Appellant'/ 'Petitioner' had tacitly 'admitted', its position as an 'Unsecured Financial Creditor'.
Be that as it may, in the light of foregoing discussions, this 'Tribunal' bearing in mind the attendant facts and circumstances of the instant case in a 'conspectus' and 'holistic' manner, comes to a consequent conclusion that the Impugned Order dated 12/05/2023 in IA/361/IB/2020 in CP(IB)540/CHE/2017, does not suffer from any 'material irregularity' or 'patent illegality', in the eye of 'Law'. Accordingly, the 'Appeal' 'sans' merits.
Result :
In fine, the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 251/2023 is dismissed. 'No Costs'. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
