TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 19
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Prakash, Senior Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. M.S. Krishnan, Senior Advocate For the Mr. Anirudh Krishnan, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. P.S. Raman, Senior Advocate For the Respondent No.3 : Mrs. Mummaneni Vazra Laxmi, Advocate For the Respondent No.4 : Mr. Shivakumar & Mr. Suresh, Advocates. ORDER (Virtual Mode) Justice M. Venugopal, Member (Judicial) : The Petitioner/Bank has preferred the instant `Interlocutory Application No.450 of 2021 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 215 of 2021 (under Rule 31 of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016) seeking to implead the `Applicant' as `Respondent No. 4' in main Company `Appeal'. 2. According to the Learned Counsel for the `Applicant/IC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.09 0.00 0.13 0.46 0.59 3.01 IOB 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 1.18 1.18 6.02 PNB 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.60 0.61 3.11 UCO 0.10 0.01 0.24 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.36 0.40 2.04 Total 4.73 0.88 9.63 1.93 0.12 2.27 17.16 19.57 100 5. It is represented on behalf of the `Applicant/Bank' that the Rs. 3rd Respondent' had created the undermentioned `Securities' on `Pari-passu' basis among the said `Lenders' including the `Applicant', which runs as under: Security for Term Loan: * First pari - passu charge on fixed assets (list of properties in annexure-I) * First p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....', its `Directors', `Shareholders' and its `Guarantors'. On 12.07.2021, this order was modified and the operation of the said order was restricted only against the Rs. 3rd Respondent'. 7. It is projected on the side of the Applicant/Bank that the Rs. 1st Respondent', in the capacity of the `Operational Creditor' had filed the Petition before the `Adjudicating Authority' (NCLT, Hyderabad) for initiation of `CIRP' proceedings against the Rs. 3rd Respondent', due to its failure to pay nearly Rs. 14.00 Crores in an `International Arbitration' initiated by the Rs. 2nd Respondent'. Indeed, the `Arbitration Proceeding' had reached its finality and that the Rs. 3rd Respondent' had not settled the dues of the Rs. 2nd Respondent'. In the `Appeal' ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he `Secured Lenders' of the Rs. 3rd Respondent' and having `charge' on the amounts attached in the `Execution Proceedings' by the Rs. 2nd Respondent' and considering the fact that the `Lead Banker' has also filed a `Claim Petition' in the said `Attachment Proceedings' claiming `charge' on the amounts lying in the attached `Account'. 10. The Learned Counsel for the `Applicant/Bank' submits that no prejudice will be caused to `any party', in the event of `Impleading Application' I.A.No. 450 of 2021 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No.215 of 2021 is allowed by this `Tribunal' and prays for allowing the `Impleading Application', to promote substantial cause of justice. 11. Conversely, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Rs. 1s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....against the Rs. 3rd Respondent/Corporate Debtor' by the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. 15. The Learned Counsel for the Rs. 1st Respondent' brings it to the notice of this `Tribunal', the Rs. 2nd Respondent' had filed S.L.P.(C) No. 9252 of 2020 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, against the Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Telengana in EX. EP. No. 3 of 2017 and that the `Special Leave Petition' came up for hearing on 24.09.2021 and the same is pending. 16. The Learned Counsel for the Rs. 1st Respondent' points out that the `Applicant/Bank' has filed CP (IB) No.278 of 2022 before the `Adjudicating Authority' (`National Company Law Tribunal', Bench - II, Hyderabad), against the `Corporate Debtor' and the same is pe....