9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the Liquidator, the Adjudicating Authority rectified the inadvertent typographical error in order dated 10.05.2024 at Sl. No.12. The Appellant(s) aggrieved by the impugned order has come up in these Appeal(s). 2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding these Appeal(s) are: i. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") against the Corporate Debtor ("CD") - Gontermann Peipers India Ltd. commenced on 11.12.2019. Resolution Plan was submitted, which was not approved by the Committee of Creditors ("CoC"). Subsequently, liquidation order was passed on 30.04.2021. ii. In the liquidation, e-auction process was held in which Appellant was declared Successful Auction Purchaser. After the Appellant having been declared the Successful Auction Purchaser and deposited the total sale consideration, the Appellant filed an IA (IB) No.1277/KB/2023 praying for certain reliefs and concessions. IA (IB) No.1277/KB/2023 was heard by the Adjudicating Authority and by order dated 10.05.2024, the Adjudicating Authority allowed the Application, granting various reliefs and concessions sought by the Appellant. iii. After passing of the aforesaid order by the Adjudicating Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority in exercise of power under Rule 154 of NCLT Rules, ought to have heard the matter on merits. 5. Shri Kumarjeet Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Liquidator, opposing the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant(s) submits that in the Resolution Plan, which was submitted before the CoC, there was also a clause for the extinguishment of personal guarantees, which was objected by the CoC and Resolution Plan was not approved by the CoC, not agreeing with the clause for extinguishment of personal guarantees. It is submitted that the auction in the liquidation proceeding was 'as is where is basis' and there was no such condition in the auction sale that there shall be extinguishment of personal guarantees. The Stakeholders Consultation Committee has never taken any decision for extinguishment of personal guarantees. It is submitted that the Liquidator during the hearing has objected to Clause-12 and during the hearing the Counsel appearing for the Appellant has also agreed that said relief is contrary to settled legal position. However, by inadvertent error the word "GRANTED" was mentioned against the said relief. Learned Counsel for the Liquidator has refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position of law and had accordingly given up the said relief as sought by the successful bidder in its Application being I.A. (IB) 1277 OF 2023 at paragraph (1) of Clause VII. 26. Moreover, the written notes of arguments filed on behalf of the* Liquidator, i.e. the Applicant herein, at paragraph number nine (9) at page number six (6) of the said written notes of argument filed before this Hon 'ble Tribunal had specifically explained as to why the said relief could not and should not be granted by this Hon'ble Tribunal." 9. In the Application filed by the Liquidator, there was specific and categorical pleading that use of word "GRANTED" was inadvertently indicated, instead of "NOT GRANTED". It was further pleaded that during the course of hearing of the Application - IA (IB) No1277 of 2023, reference of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2021) 9 SCC 321 - Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of India & Ors., where it was clearly held that approval of a Resolution Plan, personal guarantees does not ipso facto extinguished. We, thus, do not find any substance in the submission of the Appellant that the Liquidator vide his Application has prayed for review of the judgment. The pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve the surety from its liability. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: "The fact that the principal debtor had gone into liquidation would not have any effect on the Bank's liability as guarantor. Under section 128 of the Indian Contract Act the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless it is otherwise provided by the contract. A surety is no doubt discharged under section 134 of the Indian Contract Act by any contract between the creditor and the principal debtor by which the principal debtor is released or by any act or omission of the creditor, the legal consequence of which is the discharge of the principal debtor. But a discharge which the principal debtor may secure by operation of law in bankruptcy for in liquidation proceedings in the case of a company} does not absolve the surety of his liability." {Emphasis Added)" 10. The Adjudicating Authority categorically held in paragraph-15 that after considering the materials available on record and minutes of the SCC meetings it find that it was an inadvertent typographical error in the Order dated 10.05.2024, where in place of "NOT GRANTED" the word "GRANTED" h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
