TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 4th respondent stood written off in view of the Clean Slate Principle envisaged under the IBC, the said order is binding on the appellant as well (see para 40 of the order dt.27.4.2023 of the NCLT) - Consequently, the appellant-writ petitioner ceased to be not only a share holder but also a Member of the Board of Directors of the 4th respondent. The appellant has no locus either as a Share Holder or as a Director or as a Former Director of the 4th respondent to continue this Letters Patent Appeal, particularly when no leave of the NCLT had been obtained to pursue this Letters patent Appeal by him. Also, when the Management of the 4th respondent already stood transferred by reason of approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLT, it s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken against the respondents no.1 2 by filing a complaint to the RBI, to which the RBI had sent a reply on 18.05.2018, asking for comments of the 1st respondent. 5) During the pendency of the said Writ petition, the Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the RBI had made a statement that action on the basis of the complaint of the Company, cognizance of which already stands taken on 18.05.2018, would positively be taken to its logical end within two months. 6) Thereafter the said Writ petition was withdrawn in view of the said statement of the Assistant Solicitor General of India, reserving liberty to the Company to independently pursue the remedies. The subsequent CWP No.2588 of 2018 7) After the CWP No.648 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bt is illegal. 11) The appellant challenged the order of the NCLAT before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.1927 of 2019, but even the said appeal was dismissed on 08.03.2019, granting liberty to the appellant to raise all points before the NCLAT. 12) Subsequently, a Review petition was filed by the 2nd respondent before the Supreme Court, being Review Petition(C) no.687 of 2020 contending that the liberty granted to the appellant was being misused by him and so, the order passed by the Supreme Court on 08.03.2019, be modified. 13) The Supreme Court on 02.03.2021, after hearing the counsel for the parties, disposed off the Review petition holding that it is not open to the appellant to agitate the issues which were already settl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order passed on 23.08.2021 held that the appellant has no locus at this stage to seek a mandamus directing RBI to take action on the complaint filed by the 4th respondent. 19) The learned Single Judge also held that the 4th respondent, which was the appellant in CWP no.648 of 2018, is not aggrieved by the inaction of the RBI in not complying with the undertaking given during the pendency of CWP No.648 of 2018, and only it could have filed the CWP.No.2588 of 2018. 20) He also recorded a finding that the RBI could not take any action pursuant to the undertaking given by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India before the Division Bench at the time of passing of the order dt. 13.06.2018 in CWP.No.2588 of 2018 because, just pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 4th respondent. 25) Therefore the benefit of the said decision cannot be availed by the appellant as regards the instant LPA, and it is open to him to challenge the order of the NCLT approving the resolution Plan of the Resolution Applicants of Mr. Anil Sharma and Mr. Satvinder Singh before the NCLAT. 26) It is also not in dispute that the appellant had in fact filed an application CA no.658 of 2019 for impleadment and CA No.557 of 2019 under Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016 in CP (IB) No.35/Chd/HP/2018 filed by respondent no.2 before the NCLT. Though the application for impleadment filed by the appellant was allowed on 21.08.2019 and he was impleaded as 3rd respondent, the NCLT rejected the contentions of the appellant claiming re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
