TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Hon ble Supreme Court for seeking clarification in context of the order dated 21.11.2013 passed by Hon ble Supreme Court - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that resolution plan has been approved with 100% CoC and the same has also received approval by the Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order. On looking into the order dated 21.11.2013 a direction was to Sahara Group of Companies not to part with any movable and immovable properties until further orders. Direction to Sahara group of companies not to part with movable and immovable properties can have no bearing with resolution plan submitted by Successful Resolution Applicant for consideration by the Adjudicating Authority. The order dated 21.11.2013 cannot be read as any kind of restraint order in the CIRP process of the Corporate Debtor Baghauli Sugar Distillery Ltd. Anr. which is also a Sahara group of company. The clarification which was given by the Hon ble Supreme Court by the aforesaid order clearly indicate that Hon ble Supreme Court was of the view that on the strength of the order dated 21.11.2013 no proceedings before National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission can be stopped. Hon ble Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t s are not aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority approving the resolution plan submitted by Successful Resolution Applicant but they are aggrieved only against one of the direction issued in the impugned order by which Adjudicating Authority has directed the Resolution Professional and CoC to move an application before the Hon ble Supreme Court for seeking clarification in context of the order dated 21.11.2013 passed by Hon ble Supreme Court. 5. Brief facts necessary to be notice for deciding these appeals are: 5.1 On an application filed by Bank of Baroda under Section 7 Adjudicating Authority admitted Section 7 application by order dated 07.02.2020. Form-G was published by Resolution Professional. Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor have filed an I.A. No. 161 of 2020 challenging the issuance of Form-G on the pretext of embargo as contained in the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court dated 21.11.2013. Suspended Director of the Corporate Director has also filed an application praying that Resolution Professional be restrained from proceedings with the CIRP process. On 06.08.2020 CoC again decided to issue Form-G. Adjudicating Authority also granted an opp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest of Natural Justice and Equity. 5.4 Adjudicating Authority heard the I.A. No. 243 of 2023 and by order dated 24.11.2023 approved the resolution plan submitted by Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Limited. However, while approving the resolution plan Adjudicating Authority noticed the submissions of the Suspended Director of Corporate Debtor on the basis of order of the Hon ble Supreme Court dated 21.11.2013 and in paragraph 32 has passed an order that approval of the plan ordered in I.A. No. 243 of 2023 is subject to seeking the clarification from the Hon ble Supreme Court. Paragraph 32 of the order is as follows: 32. This is also noted that an objection application was also filed by the Ex-Management vide IA No.434/2023 raising objection against approval of the Resolution Plan in the face of the order dated 21.11.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition No. 412 of 2012 in CA No. 9813 of 2011 titled as SEBI vs. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd as well as the order dated 27th August, 2021 passed by this Tribunal. The said IA No. 434 of 2023 has already been dealt with by us separately and same has been dismissed except to the exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder was passed to protect the assets of the Sahara group of companies. 8. The Adjudicating Authority committed error in relying on the said order directing the Resolution Professional/CoC to obtain clarification from the Hon ble Supreme Court which was uncalled for and unnecessary. 9. The Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor have been trying to create hurdles in the proceedings of the CIRP and several applications were filed earlier. Adjudicating Authority had passed an order on 27.08.2021 giving option to the Suspended Management to file an application for a clarification/ modification of the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court but no steps were taken by the Suspended Management to file any clarification and the application which was filed by the Suspended Management being I.A. No. 434 of 2023 was only with object of causing delay and hindrance in the CIRP in the approval of the resolution plan which I.A. has no merit. 10. It is submitted that the Supreme Court itself in an order passed on 27.04.2016 in different I.As in the same CA No. 8643 of 2012 has clarified that order dated 21.11.2013 does not in any manner stop the proceedings before NCDRC which clarification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther orders. We further direct that all the alleged contemnors shall not leave the country without the permission of this Court. List on 11.12.2013 at 2.00 P.M., for further arguments. 16. When we look into the order dated 21.11.2013 a direction was to Sahara Group of Companies not to part with any movable and immovable properties until further orders. Direction to Sahara group of companies not to part with movable and immovable properties can have no bearing with resolution plan submitted by Successful Resolution Applicant for consideration by the Adjudicating Authority. The order dated 21.11.2013 cannot be read as any kind of restraint order in the CIRP process of the Corporate Debtor Baghauli Sugar Distillery Ltd. Anr. which is also a Sahara group of company. The direction not to part with movable and immovable property was direction to protect the assets of the Corporate Debtor. Any direction to protect the assets of the Corporate Debtor can have no fetter in the consideration of the resolution plan when resolution plan is submitted to revive the Corporate Debtor. 17. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also rightly relied on the order of Hon ble Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2016 is accordingly disposed of with the said direction. 18. The clarification which was given by the Hon ble Supreme Court by the aforesaid order clearly indicate that Hon ble Supreme Court was of the view that on the strength of the order dated 21.11.2013 no proceedings before National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission can be stopped. Hon ble Supreme Court categorically made it clear that order dated 21.11.2013 shall not prevent the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission from proceeding and passing order in accordance with law. The aforesaid clarification is also relevant with regard to CIRP Process of the Corporate Debtor and the intent and purpose of the order dated 21.11.2013 is very clear as clarified in order dated 27.04.2016. 19. Now we come to the earlier order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 27.08.2021 on which reliance has been placed by the Learned Counsel of the Suspended Management. Paragraph 28 29 of the order is as follows: 28. After hearing the Ld. Counsels for the parties, this Tribunal is of the opinion that it is open for the Suspended Management to give a revised OTS proposal for fresh consideration before the CoC as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in the order approving the resolution plan that Resolution Professional and CoC to obtain a clarification from the Hon ble Supreme Court with regard to order dated 21.11.2013. 25. In view of the foregoing discussion and conclusion, we decide the appeals in following manner: 25.1 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1637 of 2023, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1640 of 2023 and Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1643 of 2023 are allowed and the order dated 24.11.2023 passed in I.A. No. 243 of 2023 is modified in so far it has directed the Resolution Professional and CoC to obtain clarification from Hon ble Supreme Court in context of the order dated 21.11.2013. The aforesaid direction contained in paragraph 32 40 are deleted from the order and rest of the order of the Adjudicating Authority is affirmed. 25.2 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1642 1641 of 2023 are allowed to the extent to the observations made in the Paragraph 40 42 of the order directing the Resolution Professional and CoC to seek clarification from Hon ble Supreme Court with regard to the order dated 21.11.2013. The aforesaid direction contained in Paragraph 40 42 are deleted. Consequently, the order rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
