TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mittee of Creditors (CoC in short) and this was not accepted. Thus, the dispute. 2. This Appeal arises out of Impugned Order dated 12th August, 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, vide I.A. No. 486 of 2020 in C.P. (IB) No. 192/7/HDB/2017. By the said Impugned Order, the Application of the Appellant was rejected which sought directions against Respondent No. 1-Resolution Professional of Corporate Debtor "M/s. Amrit Jal Ventures Pvt. Limited". Appellant sought acceptance of claim of Rs. 60,47,38,233 and to declare Appellant Financial Creditor accepting Assignment Deed and entry in CoC. 3. The Appeal claims and it is argued on behalf of the Appellant that the Adjudicating Authority wrongly concluded that the Resolution Professional has rightly observed serious circumstances with regard to the assignment of debt of Respondent No. 2, to the Appellant. That, it was wrongly held by Adjudicating Authority that the Assignment Deed is unregistered. It is argued that under Section 23 of the Registration Act, Appellant had time of four months to get the Assignment Deed dated 18th May, 2020 registered but got it registered on 15th July, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essional submitted that in CIRP he has got three Resolution Plans pending in CoC to take decision however CoC could not proceed ahead due to the stay granted by this Tribunal on 22.09.2020 that Adjudicating Authority will not take a decision with regard to the approval of the Resolution Plan. The said direction has continued during the pendency of the Appeal. 9. Learned Resolution Professional submitted that one of the Resolution Plans submitted is by M/s. Shree Multi Asset Investment Trust Region India Fund which is a group entity of Respondent No. 2 assignor. It is submitted by the Ld. Resolution Professional that Respondent No. 2 claiming to be Financial Creditor was found to be related party. He has assigned debt of Rs. 60.48 Crores due from the Corporate Debtor in favour of the Appellant by Assignment Deed dated 18th May, 2020 for a mere consideration of Rs. 10 Lakhs at the fagend of CIRP. It is argued that on the basis of such Assignment Deed, the Appellant is wrongly claiming status of "Financial Creditor (non-related party)" and is wrongly claiming that he should be in CoC. The Resolution Professional submits that Respondent No. 2 which has been found to be related party i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Resolution Professional, the Appellant then issued cheque bearing back date of 18th May, 2020 for Rs. 10 Lakhs in favour of the Respondent No. 2. The Account of the Appellant Assignee was debited for Rs. 10 Lakhs on 06th June, 2020. However, Respondent No. 2 Assignor avoided to show its Bank-Statement to show that consideration of Rs. 10 Lakhs was received by the Respondent No. 2 (and not some endorsee). According to the Resolution Professional, consequently on 11th June, 2020, the Resolution Professional declined to act on Assignment Deed and the Appellant filed I.A. No. 486 of 2020 which has come to be dismissed vide the Impugned order. Learned Resolution Professional is relying on the Judgment in the matter of "Fortune Pharma Pvt. Ltd." decided by the Ld. NCLT, Mumbai Bench (Copies of which are filed with the Reply-Affidavit) to submit that in that matter Ld. NCLT held that rights of the assignee are no better than those of the assignor and that assignee steps into the shoes of assignor. The Resolution Professional did not dispute that the Appellant is an NBFC. 12. We have heard the parties. 13. It is a matter of record that earlier Respondent No. 2 had in the CIRP in the mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bles to the Appellant. 16. The Resolution Professional by the letter dated 11.06.2020 informed the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 regarding the Order dated 20.11.2019 and also informed that the Assignment Agreement dated 18th May, 2020 was not registered as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908; that proof of receipt of consideration by Respondent No. 2 had not been satisfactorily provided and that there was no provision to submit fresh Form C as Financial Creditor (Non-Related Party) after the assignor had already submitted Form C (Related Party). For such reasons recorded in details, the Resolution Professional informed Appellant and Respondent No. 2 that the submitted documents were inadequate and defectively furnished by Appellant and Respondent No. 2 and so he was unable to accept the assignment of debt. 17. The Appellant challenged such action before the Adjudicating Authority vide I.A. No. 486 of 2020 and the present Impugned Order came to be passed. 18. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that under Section 23 of the Registration Act, the Appellant had time of four months from the date of execution of the Assignment Agreement to get the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NBFC as can be seen from copy of document at Page 92 (Annexure A2) and submitted that the observations of the Adjudicating Authority in Paragraph 12 of the Impugned Order that the Appellant is non-financial institution and non- ARC is erroneous. What appears from Paragraph 12 of the Impugned Order is that the Resolution Professional claimed before the Adjudicating Authority that the Applicant is a non-financial institution. Learned Counsel for the Appellant claimed that along with written-submissions filed on 23rd July, 2020 before the Adjudicating Authority vide Annexure A9 Page 300. The Appellant had filed copy of the NBFC Certificate as has now been filed in the Appeal at Page 92. Considering the document of Appellant being NBFC, the observations of the Adjudicating Authority in this regard may have to be ignored where it accepted submission made by the Resolution Professional that the Appellant is nonfinancial institution and non-ARC. The Resolution Professional is now no more claiming that Appellant is non-financial institution. 21. In paragraph 12 of the Impugned Order the Adjudicating Authority accepted the argument of the Appellant that inadequacy of consideration was by i....