TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court refers jurisdictional dispute on NCLT's authority in insolvency case back for resolution</h1> <h3>M/s. Appollo Distilleries and Breweries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, Registrar of National Company, S. Rajendran, South (India) Hotels Pvt. Ltd., M.P. Purushothaman, Aruna Kandoth, Shasji Purushothamana, Nisha Purushothaman, R. Rangachari, Suresh Raj Mandhok, SNJ Distiller Pvt. Ltd., Empee Distilleries Ltd., Sheeju Purushothaman, Venkatesh Iyengar Raghunathan, Goodyield Investments Pvt. Ltd.</h3> M/s. Appollo Distilleries and Breweries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, Registrar of National Company, S. Rajendran, South (India) Hotels Pvt. Ltd., M.P. ... Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in entertaining an application after the acceptance of a resolution plan.Analysis:The petition before the Madras High Court challenged the jurisdiction of the NCLT in entertaining an application post the approval of a resolution plan in the corporate insolvency proceedings of Empee Distilleries Limited. The petitioner argued that once a resolution plan is accepted and approved by the Court, all matters related to the insolvency proceedings should be considered concluded, likening it to a civil suit reaching finality upon a decree. The petitioner contended that any pending applications, such as an avoidance application regarding a share transaction, should be deemed to have lapsed after the resolution plan's approval.The specific transaction in question involved shares of Empee Distilleries Limited pledged to South (India) Hotels, which were later sold to Goodyield Investments Private Limited. The successful resolution applicant, SNJ Distilleries Private Limited, emphasized the importance of these shares as a valuable asset of the corporate debtor, estimating their market value to be significant despite the petitioner's factory remaining closed for three years. The petitioner raised concerns about the NCLT's authority to continue with the avoidance application post the resolution plan's acceptance, arguing that the transaction should be considered finalized.The High Court acknowledged the legal significance of the issue at hand, irrespective of the monetary value involved, and decided to refer the matter back to the NCLT for resolution. The Court emphasized the specialized nature of insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, suggesting that the NCLT should address the legal issue before further action is taken. The Court directed the NCLT to expedite the disposal of the avoidance application and related matters within eight weeks, imposing restrictions on share transactions and asset alienation of the petitioner until a decision is reached. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to outlining the disputes and did not prejudice any party's position before the NCLT or other legal forums.In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the petition without providing a definitive answer to the legal issue, allowing the NCLT to adjudicate on the matter. The parties were granted the opportunity to present their arguments before the NCLT, with the petitioner instructed to file its counter-affidavit within a week. The Court refrained from awarding costs and closed the related interim applications.
TaxTMI 