TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrayed as a Party, in the said Application. It transpires that the Petitioner / Shareholder of the Corporate Debtor, was not part of the Stakeholders Consultation Committee, and in fact, there is no obligation, on the part of the 1st Respondent / Liquidator, to consult the Petitioner / Appellant, for any reason - It cannot be ignored, that the Petitioner / Appellant, had not filed any Claim Form, in Form G, during Liquidation Period. In terms of Regulation 20 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, the Petitioner, has no connection to the Liquidation Process, and later to the Sale of the Corporate Debtor. In the instant case, the Petitioner / Appellant, was not in a position to prove that he is an Individual, eligible to regain control of the Corporate Debtor, there being no disqualification, as per Section 29A of the I B Code, 2016 - As a matter of fact, a Scheme, was put before the Stakeholders Consultation Committee Members, in their 9th Meeting, dated 30.10.2021 and a Secured Creditors meeting, was conducted by the 1st Respondent / Liquidator, to consider the Proposal, as per Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. In fact, the Petitioner / Appellant, was informed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken on Demurrer , and the merits of the matter, cannot be gone into, for the sake of determining an Application , praying for Leave . 4. Also, it is the submission of the Petitioner / Appellant s side that the Petitioner / Appellant / Suspended Director , and a Shareholder , his Proposed Scheme , was not considered by the 1st Respondent / Liquidator , and Shares , were extinguished, in lieu of the Impugned Order , and hence, falls within the definition of being an Aggrieved Party , in terms of the Impugned Order . 5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant points out that for a Person , being Aggrieved , there is no need to prove any Sufficient Cause , to file an Appeal and in fact, no prejudice , will be caused to anyone, in allowing the IA No. 125 of 2023, by this Tribunal . Petitioner / Appellant s Citations: 6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant, to fortify his contention that even a Person , who is not a Party , to the Original Proceedings , can prefer an Appeal , irrespective of whether, such Party , was a Party to the Proceedings , before the lower Court, adverts to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Basanti Devi v. Raviprakash Ramprasad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n or enterprise has substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings, and such person may therefore be allowed to take part in the proceedings. What is also extremely important is regulation 35, by which the CCI must maintain confidentiality of the identity of an informant on a request made to it in writing, so that such informant be free from harassment by persons involved in contravening the Act. 18. This being the case, it is difficult to agree with the impugned judgment of the NCLAT in its narrow construction of section 19 of the Act, which therefore stands set aside. 19. With the question of the Informant s locus standi out of the way, one more important aspect needs to be decided, and that is the submission of Shri Rao, that in any case, a person like the Informant cannot be said to be a person aggrieved for the purpose of sections 53B and 53T of the Act. Shri Rao relies heavily upon Adi Pherozshah Gandhi (supra), in which section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 came up for consideration, which spoke of the right of appeal of any person aggrieved by an order of the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council. It was held that since the Advocate General could not be said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suffered by the complainant. Section 494 does not restrict the right of filing complaint to the first wife and there is no reason to read the said section in a restricted manner as is suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant. Section 494 does not say that the complaint for commission of offence under the said section can be filed only by the wife living and not by the woman with whom the subsequent marriage takes place during the lifetime of the wife living and which marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such wife. The complaint can also be filed by the person with whom the second marriage takes place which is void by reason of its taking place during the life of the first wife. (page 628) 21. Clearly, therefore, given the context of the Act in which the CCI and the NCLAT deal with practices which have an adverse effect on competition in derogation of the interest of consumers, it is clear that the Act vests powers in the CCI and enables it to act in rem, in public interest. This would make it clear that a person aggrieved must, in the context of the Act, be understood widely and not be constructed narrowly, as was done in Adi Pherozshah Gandhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the direction under Section 26(1) after formation of a prima facie opinion is a direction simpliciter to cause an investigation into the matter. Issuance of such a direction, at the face of it, is an administrative direction to one of its own wings departmentally and is without entering upon any adjudicatory process. It does not effectively determine any right or obligation of the parties to the lis. Closure of the case causes determination of rights and affects a party i.e. the informant; resultantly, the said party has a right to appeal against such closure of case under Section 26(2) of the Act. On the other hand, mere direction for investigation to one of the wings of the Commission is akin to a departmental proceeding which does not entail civil consequences for any person, particularly, in light of the strict confidentiality that is expected to be maintained by the Commission in terms of Section 57 of the Act and Regulation 35 of the Regulations. 101. The right to prefer an appeal is available to the Central Government, the State Government or a local authority or enterprise or any person aggrieved by any direction, decision or order referred to in clause (a) of Section 53-A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ple of fairness would demand that such party should be heard by the Tribunal before any orders adverse to it are passed in such cases. The Tribunal has taken this view and we have no hesitation in accepting that in cases where proceedings initiated suo motu by the Commission, the Commission is a necessary party. 106. However, we are also of the view that in other cases the Commission would be a proper party. It would not only help in expeditious disposal, but the Commission, as an expert body, in any case, is entitled to participate in its proceedings in terms of Regulation 51. Thus, the assistance rendered by the Commission to the Tribunal could be useful in complete and effective adjudication of the issue before it. (page 788) 125. We have already noticed that the principal objects of the Act, in terms of its Preamble and the Statement of Objects and Reasons, are to eliminate practices having adverse effect on the competition, to promote and sustain competition in the market, to protect the interest of the consumers and ensure freedom of trade carried on by the participants in the market, in view of the economic developments in the country. In other words, the Act requires not on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arty to the Original Proceedings , before the Adjudicating Authority ( Tribunal ). Also that, the Proforma Sole Respondent in IA(IBC)/1018(CHE)/2022, was only the Buyer , Viz. M/s. G C Logistics India Private Limited / 2nd Respondent . 10. Advancing his argument, the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Liquidator, contends that, it is not the case of the Petitioner / Appellant that he was unaware of the Ongoing Proceedings , before the Adjudicating Authority . If really the Petitioner / Appellant , was so Affected , by the Impugned Order , he could have filed necessary Application , before the Adjudicating Authority , claiming certain Reliefs . As an afterthought, the Petitioner / Appellant , has filed IA No. 125 of 2023 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 34 of 2023 (seeking Relief , to prefer an Appeal ), and further, being a Shareholder / Erstwhile Promoter / Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor , the Petitioner / Appellant , has no Locus Standi , to prefer the instant Interlocutory Application , together with the instant Appeal . 11. Apart from the above, according to the 1st Respondent / Liquidator, the Petitioner / a Shareholder of the Corporate Debtor , was not part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s against the Corporate Debtor , and they were dismissed . 15. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent points out that the Petitioner / Appellant, had set up persons like Mr. Karthikeyan, Mr. GVRS. Manian, Mr. Jackson and other Customers, who filed Applications, before the Adjudicating Authority , to act on his behalf, knowing that the Petitioner / Appellant , has no Locus , to prefer an Application , before the Adjudicating Authority ( Tribunal ), as an endeavour made by the Petitioner / Appellant , before the Appellate Authority , and the Hon ble Supreme Court , which proved futile . 16. In this connection, on behalf of the 1st Respondent, it is pointed out that, based on the Order dated 19.01.2023, the Sale Agreement dated 27.01.2023, was already executed, between the Corporate Debtor and the 2nd Respondent , by means of which, the whole management, was handed over to the 2nd Respondent / Company, and as per Section 53 of the I B Code, 2016, the Sale Proceeds , received from the 2nd Respondent , was distributed and hence, nothing survives , in the present Interlocutory Application vis- -vis the Appeal , and in fact, the whole management, rests with the 2nd Respondent , and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... National Company Law Appellate Tribunal , under Section 61 of the I B Code, 2016, cannot rely upon Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, as opined by this Tribunal . No wonder, an Appeal , from an Order , Approving such Resolution Plan , is only limited to the grounds, laid down in Section 61 (3) of the I B Code, 2016. Appraisal : 24. It is pertinently pointed out that the 1st Respondent / Petitioner, had filed an IA(IBC)/1018(CHE)/2022 in CP/759/IB/CB/2018, before the Adjudicating Authority ( Tribunal ), as per Section 60(5) of the I B Code, 2016, read with Regulations 32A (e), seeking Sale of the Corporate Debtor , as a Going Concern , through a Private Sale , along with other Reliefs . Indeed, the 2nd Respondent ( G C Logistics India Private Ltd. / Buyer ), is arrayed as a Party , in the said Application . 25. The Petitioner / Appellant, had not filed his objections and also not taken steps to be impleaded , as one of the Parties in IA(IBC)/1018(CHE)/2022 in CP/759/IB/CB/2018, on the file of the Adjudicating Authority ( Tribunal ). 26. It transpires that the Petitioner / Shareholder of the Corporate Debtor , was not part of the Stakeholders Consultation Committee , and in fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s , in the teeth of the ingredients of Section 53 of the I B Code, 2016. 32. Notwithstanding the above, this Tribunal , keeping in mind of a candid fact that the Petitioner / Appellant , is not , a Stakeholder in the Liquidation Process of the Corporate Debtor , and has no vested interest in the Corporate Debtor , taking note of the fact that the Payment Consideration of Rs.44,64,00,000/- and the same was distributed, as per Section 53 of the I B Code, 2016, comes to a conclusion that the Leave , prayed for, by the Petitioner / Appellant , to prefer the present Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 34 of 2023 , is not accorded to , by this Tribunal , based on the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case, which float on the surface. Resultantly, the IA No. 125 of 2023 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 34 of 2023 , sans merits and it fails. Conclusion : In fine, the IA No. 125 of 2023 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 34 of 2023 is dismissed . No costs. Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 34 of 2023 : Because of the fact that this Tribunal , has Dismissed the IA No. 125 of 2023 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 34 of 2023 ( Leave , to prefer an Appeal ), filed by the Petitioner / Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
