9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of two appeals arises from a common judgment dated 14 September 2022 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal "NCLAT" in (i) Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos 637 and 638 of 2022; and (ii) Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos 635 and 636 of 2022. Facts pertaining to Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos 637 and 38 of 2022 2 Punjab National Bank, the financial creditor, filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code "IBC" 2016 for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process "CIRP" against Vallabh Textiles Limited, the Corporate Debtor. The application was admitted on 12 April 2019. An Interim Resolution Professional "IRP" was appointed. The IRP was confirmed as Resolution Professional "RP" by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 29A(f) of the IBC because at the time of the submission of the resolution plan and its approval by the CoC it had been debarred by SEBI from accessing the securities market. An application was filed by the first respondent, Shreeji Cotfab Limited for declaring the appellant ineligible to be a resolution applicant in view of the provisions of Section 29A(f) of the IBC. The application was allowed by the NCLT by a judgment dated 24 May 2022. The appeal against the judgment of NCLT was dismissed by the impugned judgment. 4 The appellant is an exclusively listed company whose shares were listed on the Stock Exchanges at Jaipur and New Delhi. Consequent upon the closure of the Regional Stock Exchanges, the appellant was moved to the Dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 10 October 2016 and 1 August 2017 to restrain any person from accessing the securities market, and therefore the notice issued by BSE on 27 March 2018 is illegal. Moreover, it was urged that BSE could not have passed the order dated 28 March 2021 debarring the appellant in terms of Section 29A(f) without recourse to the mandatory procedure prescribed in Section 11(4) of the SEBI Act 1992. In other words, it was urged that there was an error in holding the appellant to be ineligible under Section 29A(f). On these grounds, it is urged that there was no valid debarment of the appellant and, hence the provisions of Section 29A(f) have no application. 7 The NCLT held that the appellant was debarred in terms of Section 25A(f) and the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which, the prohibition on accessing the securities market stands lifted. The second important aspect which needs to be noted is that the resolution plan submitted by the appellant was submitted before the adjudicating authority under Section 31, and no final orders have been passed. Section 31(1) stipulates that if the adjudicating authority is satisfied that the resolution plan approved by the CoC under subsection 4 of Section 30 meets the requirement under Section 30(2), it shall, by order, approve the resolution plan. In the present case, even before the resolution plan submitted by the appellant could be approved, a fresh round has taken place before the CoC, as a consequence of which, Expressions of Interest "EoI" have been invited. Du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
