9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2024 This Application has been filed by Directorate of Enforcement, praying for recall of order dated 13.08.2024, by which Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1495 of 2024 was allowed. The prayers made in the Application are as follows: "a. Recall order dated 13.08.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1495 of 2024; b. Vacate the direction pertaining to lifting the Provisional Attachment order dated 24.01.2019; c. Declare that the attached properties could never have formed part of the resolution plan and d. Pass such other orders/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit. 2. The brief background facts necessary to be noticed for deciding this Appeal are: (i) The Corporate Debtor ("CD") - Alchemist Infra Realty Limited was subjected to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") by order dated 08.10.2021 passed by Adjudicating Authority in an Application under Section 7 filed by Technology Parks Ltd. (ii) In the CIRP of the CD, Resolution Plan submitted by Vantage Point Asset Pte. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant") was approved by order dated 04.07.2024 passed by NCLT, New Delhi Bench (Court-II) in C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 29A r/w Sec. 30(1) of IBC, 2016 by the RP within 15 days of this Order. It is made clear That no relief/ concession is accorded to the SRA. The relief sought regarding direction to ED to release the property of the CD attached by it is specifically rejected. It would be open to SRA to resort to the remedies available under PMLA for release of the attached properties in accordance with law. As has been noted hereinabove, the SRA has committed that it would implement the plan irrespective of the fact that no relief/ concession sought by him is granted by this Tribunal. If the affidavit of SRA under Sec. 29A read with Sec. 30(1) of the Code is not filed within 15 days from the date of uploading of this order, the application for approval of plan would be deemed to be rejected and the security amount deposited by the SRA would stand forfeited." (iii) From the above order, it is clear that relief sought regarding direction to ED to release property of CD attached by it, was specifically rejected. The Appellant aggrieved by the said order, filed the present Appeal, in which, following prayers were made: "a. Pass an order setting aside the finding at Para 60 in the Impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No.4974 of 2018 vide order dated 22.01.2019. It is submitted that against the order dated 22.01.2019 passed by learned Single Judge, an LPA No.104 of 2019 was filed, in which LPA, the Delhi High Court passed an order that Petitioner (CD) shall not alienate the property in any manner during the pendency of the Appeal and further directed that status quo with regard to the property in question, which are the subject matter of provisional attachment shall be maintained. It is submitted that order passed by this Tribunal, directing for release of attachment is not in conformity with the order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 13.02.2019. The learned Counsel further submits that the judgment of Delhi High Court on which reliance was placed by this Tribunal in order dated 13.08.2024, i.e. Shiv Charan and Ors. vs. Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2022 and Anr., was questioned by the ED in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 34194/2024, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.08.2024 issued Notice granting leave against the judgment of Delhi High Court. It is submitted that judgment relied by thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to recall a judgment are well settled. A five Member Bench of this Tribunal in Union of India vs. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian & Ors. - (2023) SCC OnLine NCLAT 283 has dealt upon the grounds, on which an Application for recall of a judgment can be entertained. 9. From the facts as noticed above, it is clear that Adjudicating Authority has specifically rejected the prayer of SRA, seeking a direction to ED to withdraw the attachment on the assets under PMLA Act, 2002. The Appeal filed by SRA was limited to the findings in paragraph 60 of the judgment as extracted above. The approval of Resolution Plan was not under challenge in the Appeal and the order of the Adjudicating Authority was dated 04.07.2024 was challenged, insofar as it refused to withdraw the attachment and further refused to extend the protection of Section 32- A. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant is praying for recall of judgment and matter be heard again and at present the Applicant is not raising any issues pertaining to statutory scheme under Section 32-A and the law as governed under the IBC. The issue in question and the arguments shall be addressed when the Appeal is heard afresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hment by ED dated 24.01.2019. The Appeal was filed against the said order of the Adjudicating Authority praying that direction be issued to the ED to withdraw the attachment. 13. In a proceeding before a Court or Tribunal, all necessary parties are to be impleaded, even if, a party is not a necessary party, which may be treated as a proper party, whose presence may be necessary for deciding the issues, which have come up before the Court or who may have some stake in the issues, which has arisen for adjudication. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR (1963) SC 786 - Udit Narain Singh Malpharia vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and Anr. has laid down that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. It is useful to refer to paragraphs 7 and 10 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are as follows: "7. To answer the question raised it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding. The law on the subjec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
