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>Tribunal clarifies IRP costs, directs notice against Respondents, consolidates appeal, upholds prior direction.</h1> <h3>Arcelormittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. Versus SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. & Ors.</h3> Arcelormittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. Versus SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. & Ors. - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of direction regarding payment of IRP costs to 'OSPIL' by the original Corporate Debtor.2. Treatment of Resolution Applicant as the Corporate Debtor.3. Apprehension regarding consequences of non-compliance with the direction.4. Issuance of notice against Respondents and tagging of the appeal with another case.5. Operation of interim direction in the present appeal.6. Listing the appeal for admission on a specified date.Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of direction regarding payment of IRP costsThe judgment addresses the concern raised by the Appellant regarding the direction in the impugned order for the original Corporate Debtor to make the payment of IRP costs to 'OSPIL' by a specified date. The Appellant argues that the direction could be misconstrued as being against them, i.e., 'Arcelormittal Nippon Steel India Limited.' The Tribunal acknowledges this concern and decides to delve deeper into this matter during the hearing.Issue 2: Treatment of Resolution Applicant as the Corporate DebtorThere is a preliminary observation that the Resolution Applicant has been perceived as the Corporate Debtor in the impugned order. However, this characterization is deemed to require further scrutiny and clarification during the proceedings. The Tribunal notes that the language used in the order might create confusion regarding the party against whom the direction is intended.Issue 3: Apprehension regarding consequences of non-complianceThe judgment emphasizes the potential apprehension that the original Corporate Debtor may have due to the wording of the order and the consequences outlined in case of non-compliance. The Tribunal acknowledges the need to address this apprehension and ensure clarity regarding the responsibilities of the parties involved.Issue 4: Issuance of notice against Respondents and tagging of the appealTo address the raised issues effectively, the Tribunal directs the issuance of notice against the Respondents and decides to consolidate the present appeal with another related case. The Appellant is instructed to provide contact details of the Respondents for the issuance of notice through appropriate channels within a specified timeframe.Issue 5: Operation of interim directionThe judgment clarifies that the interim direction issued in a prior case shall also apply to the present appeal until further orders are passed. This decision aims to maintain consistency and avoid any confusion or discrepancies in the application of interim measures.Issue 6: Listing the appeal for admissionFinally, the Tribunal schedules the appeal along with the related case 'for admission (after notice)' on a specific date, ensuring a structured and timely progression of the legal proceedings. This step indicates the Tribunal's commitment to addressing the issues raised and providing a platform for a comprehensive review of the matter.Overall, the judgment reflects a meticulous approach to resolving the identified issues, ensuring procedural fairness, and maintaining clarity in the legal process.
TaxTMI 