TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Dibyadyuti Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Srideep Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Anand Dey, Adv. And Ms. Sumedha Banerjee, Adv. JUDGMENT DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J 1 This appeal arises from an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal "NCLAT" dated 8 September 2020. 2 The appellant submitted a Resolution Plan for a company by the name of Tecpro Systems Limited "Corporate Debtor" which was undergoing the Corporate insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 "IBC". The Resolution Plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors "CoC" on 8 March 2019 with a majority of 89.92%. The Resolution Plan was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal "NCLT" on 15 May 2019. The appellant accordingly deposited....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....editor, who had appeared before the National Company Law Appellant Tribunal. EARC has supported the appellant. Mr Ashish Makhija, learned counsel appears on behalf of the liquidator to oppose the appeal and support the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. 3 The corporate insolvency resolution process (CIR process) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor on 7 August 2017. The Resolution Plan submitted by the appellant was approved on 30 April 2018 by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The Resolution Plan was approved by the NCLT on 15 May 2019. The NCLT was thereafter moved on the ground that the Resolution Plan had not been implemented by the appellant. Hence an application was filed under Section 33 of the Insol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....escrow would stand forfeited if it failed to deposit the payment of Rs. 50 crores. NCLAT by its order dated 8 September 2020, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of liquidation. 6 Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that liquidation of the undertaking should be a matter of last resort and, consistent with the understanding which was arrived at on 25 February 2020, the appellant is willing to abide by the terms as agreed. He has submitted that within a period of three months, the appellant would bring in the upfront payment of Rs. 50 crores, failing which the amount of Rs. 15 crores which has already been deposited in escrow would stand forfeited together with the amount of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to do so, we direct that the appellant shall, in order to demonstrate its bona fides deposit an amount of Rs. 50 crores upfront in terms of the understanding which was arrived at on 25 February 2020. The appellant is specifically placed on notice of the fact that should it fail to do so in whole or in part, the entire amount of Rs. 20 crores which has been deposited thus far, shall stand forfeited without any further recourse to the appellant. Accordingly, the following interim directions are issued: (i) The operation of the impugned order of the NCLAT dated 8 September 2020, is stayed; (ii) The appellant shall, in order to demonstrate its ability to implement the Resolution Plan and in compliance with the understanding a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant submits that before finance can be made available to the appellant, the Term Lenders have insisted that the status of the Company must be altered from that of a company under liquidation, to an active company. A copy of the email addressed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India on 15 January 2021 has been annexed to the aforesaid IA. Mr Vishwanathan submits that the previous orders of this Court recognize that the appellant was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 50 crores in terms of the understanding which was arrived at with the CoC on 25 February 2020. It has been submitted that the appellant would hence raise the funds after securing a mortgage on the assets of the Corporate Debtor. However, the Term Lenders are not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of NCLAT was stayed, time for the deposit of Rs. 50 crores was extended until 25 February 2021. The appellant was clearly put on notice that the amount of Rs. 20 crores already deposited would stand forfeited in the event the appellant fails to comply with the terms of the order. 11 The appellant has been unable to raise the funds. The fact of the matter, as it emerges from Mr Vishwanathan's submissions, is that the appellant will be unable to raise funds from the Term Lenders who are insisting that the status of the Company should change from a company under liquidation to an active status. The order of liquidation has not been set aside. Ultimately, what the request of the appellant reduces itself to, is that it would raise funds on ....