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>Supreme Court dismisses Contempt Petition against Deccan Value Investors LP (DVI)</h1> <h3>Committee of Creditors of AMTEK Auto Limited Through Corporation Bank Versus Dinkar T Venkatasubramanian & Others And Committee of Creditors of AMTEK Auto Limited Through Corporation Bank Versus Vinit Bodas, Authorised Signatory, Deccan Value Investor LP Alleged Contemnor</h3> Committee of Creditors of AMTEK Auto Limited Through Corporation Bank Versus Dinkar T Venkatasubramanian & Others And Committee of Creditors of AMTEK Auto ... Issues Involved:1. Contempt Petition against Deccan Value Investors LP (DVI) for violation of a Supreme Court order.2. Application for rectification of a Supreme Court order by DVI.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Contempt Petition Against DVI:Background:The Committee of Creditors (CoC) of AMTEK Auto Limited filed a Contempt Petition against DVI for allegedly violating a Supreme Court order dated 18 June 2020. This order was related to the approval and implementation of DVI's resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).Court Proceedings and Findings:- The CoC's resolution plan was initially approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and later contested by DVI due to the financial impact of COVID-19.- Despite the Supreme Court's rejection of DVI's application for modification on 18 June 2020, DVI continued to delay the implementation of the resolution plan by raising the plea of force majeure and failing to submit the required performance bank guarantee.- The Supreme Court noted that DVI's conduct was contumacious as it sought to evade its obligations under the approved resolution plan.- However, the Court decided not to exercise its contempt jurisdiction, emphasizing that setting up an untenable plea should not per se invite penal consequences.- The Court directed DVI not to plead force majeure in the pending appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).Conclusion:The Contempt Petition was dismissed, but DVI was explicitly barred from raising the force majeure plea in the NCLAT proceedings.2. Application for Rectification by DVI:Background:DVI filed an application for rectification of the Supreme Court's order dated 18 June 2020, claiming factual misconceptions in the order.Court Proceedings and Findings:- DVI argued that the order incorrectly suggested that it sought to withdraw its resolution plan and that it had previously sought extensions of time.- The Supreme Court analyzed the record and found that DVI's application indeed indicated an intent to renegotiate the resolution plan due to the impact of COVID-19, which contradicted its obligations under the approved plan.- The Court emphasized that the judicial order's record speaks for itself and cannot be reinterpreted to suit DVI's claims.- The application for rectification was found to be an attempt by DVI to renege on its commitments and was dismissed.Conclusion:The application for rectification was dismissed, reaffirming the Supreme Court's original order.Final Directions:1. DVI's application for rectification was dismissed.2. The Contempt Petition was dismissed, but DVI was barred from pleading force majeure in the NCLAT.3. The NCLAT was directed to dispose of DVI's appeal against the NCLT's approval of the resolution plan within one month.Summary:The Supreme Court dismissed both the Contempt Petition against DVI and DVI's application for rectification of the Court's order. DVI was prohibited from raising the force majeure plea in its appeal before the NCLAT, which was directed to expedite the hearing and disposal of the appeal.
TaxTMI 