TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Advocate Mr. Hiranyak, Advocate Mr. Ajay Gaggar, Advocate Ms. Urmila Chakraborty, Advocate Ms. Deepika Murali, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Satish Parasaran, Senior Advocate Mr. Parthasarathy and Mr. Rahul Balaji, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Rishi Srinivas, Advocate for R-2. JUDGMENT ( Virtual Mode ) NARESH SALECHA , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) The Present Appeals are filed against the 'impugned order' dated 08.04.2022 passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' [National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench] in CP. (IB) No. 11/BB/2022, whereby, the 'Adjudicating Authority' dismissed two applications i.e. I.A. No. 86 & 87 of 2022 which were filed under the 'Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016' (in short 'I & B Code, 2016). Brief Facts: 2. There are two appeals i.e CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 142 of 2022 in CP. (IB) No. 11/ BB/ 2022 and CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 174 of 2022 in CP. (IB) No. 11/ BB/ 2022. The common 'impugned order' was issued by the 'Adjudicating Authority' on 08.04.2022 and therefore, both the Appeals are connected and accordingly dealt with during pleadings. This 'Appellate Tribunal' shall also examine these two Appeals in combined manner in following discussions. 3. In the Appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the 'Corporate Debtor' which entitled 1st Respondent to enter into shoes of ZACL by way of right of subrogation for Recovery of Dues from the Corporate Debtor. M/s Sunstar Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd. (the 'Financial Creditor') therein/ Respondent No. 1 herein paid all sums outstanding of the 'Corporate Debtor' to ZACL on 20.11.2021 and acquired rights to impose recovery from the 'Corporate Debtor'. M/s Sunstar Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd. (the 'Financial Creditor') therein/ Respondent No. 1 herein, further advanced Rs. 1,50,00,000/- as an 'ICD' on 20.10.2021 @ 18% interest p.a to be paid back within four weeks. The 'Corporate Debtor' however, could not make any repayment. This led M/s Sunstar Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd. (the 'Financial Creditor') therein/ Respondent No. 1 herein to issue 'Demand Notice' on 10.12.2021 and in response, the 'Corporate Debtor' vide reply dated 15.12.2021 sought additional time to pay. 8. Mr. Nirej Vadakkedathu Paul, the 1st Appellant herein along with 8 others filed I.A. No. 86 of 2022 seeking permission to intervene in CP. (IB) 11/BB/2022 and similarly one I.A. No. 87 of 2022 also sought intervention filed by the M/s Kushal Sen Gupta and others .....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....j Vadakkedathu Paul 1,50,000 2 Dr. TJ Leelamma 2,000 3 Ms. Litty Thomas 2,00,000 4 Ms. Sheeja T 22,222 5 M/s Equity Intelligence India Private Limited 4,20,000 6 M/s. Acacia Partners, L.P. 7,76,269 7 M/s. Acacia II Partner, L.P. 64,000 8 M/s. Acacia Institutional Partners, L.P. 4,88,709 9 M/s. Acacia Conservation Fund, L.P. 48,000 TOTAL 21,71,200 (approx. 15% share capital) 14. Learned Counsel for the Appellants assailed the conduct of the 1st Respondent, who is connivance with the 2nd Respondent, initiated illegal and fraudulent 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' with mala-fide and ulterior motives. Learned Counsel for the Appellants also stated that the 2nd Respondent was virtually unrepresented as there was only a solitary director of the Corporate Debtor who was also appointed illegally and did not defend at all. 15. Learned Counsel for the Appellants further assailed the 'impugned order' 08.04.2022 as unreasoned order passed without dealing with the arguments raised by the intervenors in both the petitions before the 'Adjudicating Authority' and also ignored the maintainability issues raised by the Intervenors therein. 16. Learned C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... more specifically demerger whereby the investment business of McDowell and Company Ltd. was transferred to the 2nd Respondent. 21. Learned Counsel for the Appellants stated that in October/November 2020, the 2nd Respondent appointed three Directors, namely, Mr. Theerthesh B.S., Ms. Sarvamangala Hadapada and Mr. G. Sreenivas as its Additional Directors. These appointment were to be confirmed in the Annual General Meeting held on 29.09.2021 for which e-voting was opened from 25.09.2021 to 28.09.2021, however, by 99.24% of voting, proposed appointments of all three Additional Directors were rejected on 28.09.2021 and therefore, the 2nd Respondent illegally sought to adjourn the AGM on pretext of want of quorum. The Additional Directors, who were themselves voted out from the 'Corporate Debtor', appointed wrongly two more Additional Directors namely, Amr. Nanjundaiah Ramanna and Mr. G.V.R. Murthy on 17.11.2021. 22. Learned Counsel for the Appellants stated that a tripartite agreement was entered into by 'ZACL' with 1st & 2nd Respondent for assignment of debts of Rs. 15 crores (approx.) with malicious intentions to defraud the minority shareholders of the 'Corporate Debtor' and worki....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of said agreement and in immediate subsequent event, an application was filed under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016 on 06.01.2022. According to Learned Counsel for the Appellants the entire sequence from AGM to filing of Section 7 application was orchestrated within two months, which is a classic case of blatant misuse of provision of I & B Code, 2016 only to deprive economic value of 46,000 majority shareholders of the 'Corporate Debtor'. 27. Learned Counsel for the Appellants continued arguments on fraudulence and illegal Section 7 Application alleging that by alleged debt of mere Rs. 15 crores (approx.) the Respondents are trying to take over the assets of more than Rs. 1000 crore of the 'Corporate Debtor'. Learned Counsel for the Appellants again alleged that the CP (IB) 11/ BB/2022 was malicious and had been initiated on behalf of erstwhile promoters of the 2nd Respondent i.e. Mr. Vijay Mallya and his group. To buttress his point, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants stated that the 1st Respondent is an affiliate of one "Balaji Distilleries" Group which was contract manufacturer of Vijay Mallya Group for many years. Learned Counsel for the Appellants further stated that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Bankruptcy (Insolvency Liquidation Proceedings of Financial Service Providers and Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2019. 30. Learned Counsel for the Appellants mentioned that the 2nd Respondent also provided Financial Consultancy Services as can be seen 'Memorandum of Association' of the 2nd Respondent as well Annual Report for Financial Year 2020-21 which clearly establishes that one of object of the 2nd Respondent is to provide 'Financial Advisory and Subsidiary Services'. Learned Counsel for the Appellants also stated that the notes to the Financial Statements mentioned clearly that the company had obtained Registration from RBI as Non-Banking (Non- Deposit Accepting) Financial Company and this fact was also reflected by Independent Auditor's in their opinion stating that the company should be registered with 'Reserve Bank of India' under Section 45-IA of the RBI Act and has applied for such a registration. 31. Learned Counsel for the Appellants cited RBI website which lists the Respondent No. 2 as an NBFC. 32. Learned Counsel for the Appellants pointed out that the Auditors of the 2nd Respondent have taken a stand that the 2nd Respondent should be registered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r stated that as per settlement proposal, 100% of admitted claims of both the 'Financial Creditors', namely, the 1st Respondent and M/s Pixie amounting to Rs. 18,65,17,601/-, were to be satisfied and the proposal was supported by almost 45% of shareholders of the 'Corporate Debtor'. Learned Counsel for the Appellants stated that the 'Committee of Creditors' however, did not accept the proposal which demonstrated that the 'Committee of Creditors' were acting with ulterior motives without any intention for resolution and recovering of money of their debts. 36. Learned Counsel for the Appellants referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Swiss Ribbon where it was held that the focus of I & B Code, 2016 is to revive the Corporate Debtor and to protect it from the 'Erstwhile Management' and not mere recovery legislation for Creditors. Learned Counsel for the Appellants stated that this landmark judgment was not considered by the Adjudicating Authority in the 'impugned order' and the 'Adjudicating Authority' refused to lift the 'corporate veil' to arrive at true reason behind filing the Insolvency Petition. 37. Learned Counsel for the Appellants als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent colluding with the 1st Respondent on the other hand, would avail the benefit of Section 32-A of the I & B Code, 2016 to remove the attachment on the assets of the 2nd Respondent and gain assets worth over Rs. 1000 crores and retain control of the 2nd Respondent. 41. Learned Counsel for the Appellants also cited judgment of this Appellate Tribunal in the matter of "Reliance Commercial Finance Limited vs. Darode Jog Builder Private Limited" in CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 1005 of 2022 dated 19.09.2022, wherein this 'Appellate Tribunal' held that if the 'Corporate Debtor' is willing to pay the entire amount, the Financial Creditor cannot refuse to accept the same and this 'Appellate Tribunal' while confirming the 'Adjudicating Authority' 'impugned order' affirmed that no purpose or occasion shall survive to still proceed with the Insolvency Resolution of the Corporate Debtor. 42. Learned Counsel for the Appellants, therefore, urged strongly that in light of this judgement read along with judgment of the Supreme Court of India dated 12.07.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 4633 of 2021 in the matter of "Vidharbha Industries Power Limited Vs. Axis Bank Limited", the 'Adjudicating Authority' ought no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Counsel for the 1st Respondent further briefed that as per this settlement agreement, the 2nd Respondent was to make all the payment on or before 16.12.2020 which included sum of Rs. 10,60,56,810/- along with interest being outstanding of ICD amount. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent elaborated the details of two tranches i.e. the first tranche by way of sale and transfer of shares of the 'Corporate Debtor' in 'MCFL' to 'ZACL' and the second tranche was by procuring release of shares of United Breweries Limited and amounts realized from the sale of shares of United Breweries Limited. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that at the request of the 'Corporate Debtor' repayment schedule was extended by ZACL for a period of 6 months and as per modified terms of agreement the 'Corporate Debtor', was required to make payment towards (i) the remaining sum due which consisted of Rs. 5,68,13,785.95, (ii) interest of Rs. 7,38,11,381/19/- and (ii) interest accrued on the sum outstanding from completion of payment of tranche 1. 50. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that they were made to believe by the 2nd Respondent that the 2nd Respondent would be shortly in poss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olders cannot maintain derivative actions. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent assailed the conduct of the 'Appellants' who purchased shares in recent past knowing fully well that outstanding debts of the 2nd Respondent reflected in the financial statements. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent tried to question genuine intention of the 'Appellants' for acquiring shares even with knowledge that the assets of the 2nd Respondent i.e. shares in certain company are under attachment. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent also alleged that the 'Appellants' have come with unclean hands and have not disclosed the dates on which the shares were acquired by them. 54. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent challenged the locus of the 'Appellants' in the present appeal and reiterated that the 'Appellants' are mere shareholders and by no stretch of imagination, they can be treated as aggrieved party. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that it is settled law that with regard to debt and default, the contesting parties can only be the 'Financial Creditor' and the 'Corporate Debtor' and therefore, there is no place for third party to intervene as per the scheme of I & B Code, 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....btor to settle dues with financial creditor. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent also mentioned that there are no such precedents or judicial judgements to support wrongful suggestions of the 'Appellants'. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent further stated that the once the 'Resolution Plan' is approved, it takes care in interest of all the stakeholder including the 'Appellant' herein and furthermore the 'Appellants' are free to take legal remedies as permissible under concerned law rather than abusing the provisions of I & B Code, 2016. 61. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent also strongly refuted allegations of fraud/ collusion between the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent which have been alleged without any basis and in fact the 'Appellants' are themselves having nexus with Erstwhile Promoters of the company Mr. Vijay Mallya and is corroborated by the fact that the 'Appellants' purchased most of the shares recently knowing very well that assets (in form of shares of the 'Corporate Debtor' in other companies) are under attachment. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that the 'Appellants' have failed to produce any documentary documents to establish nexus b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y failed to do. 65. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent alleged that the intention of the 'Appellants' is to derail the process of 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' which has resulted into approval of the 'Resolution Plan' by the 'Committee of Creditors'. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent further stated that in guise of buying some shares in the recent past knowing well that the property of the 'Corporate Debtor' is under attachment, the 'Appellants' have devised an illegal and fraudulent method of taking over reins of the 'Corporate Debtor' and taking over the assets of more than 1000 crores by mere 'Speculative Investment' in shares of the 'Corporate Debtor'. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that the intent becomes quite clear when the 1st Appellant himself have volunteered to be the Board of Directors of the 2nd Respondent. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that their all transactions have been entered into on commercial principals and strictly following all the laws of the land and was done with genuine intention of reviving the 'Corporate Debtor'. 66. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent also refuted alleged settlement proposal subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hold any shares in the 'Corporate Debtors' company. 69. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent emphasised that similar pattern of unhealthy acquisition of shares has been resorted by other shareholders also and to prove this point, Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted the details of acquisition of shares made by the parties 'the settlement proposal' in form of a chart along with Chart showing inter-se relationship between the Appellants and that they are persons acting in concert which is Chart showing links between few Appellants/ Persons proposing to make payments and Mr. Vijay Mallya. These charts furnished by the 'Respondents' which are seen as under :- Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent pointed out that the arguments of the 'Appellants' of their entitlement to submit settlement proposal as a 'contributory' under Companies Act, 2013, is legally not permissible as, the I & B Code, 2016 is a complete cod and the concept of 'contributory' is envisaged only during process of liquidation under the Companies Act, 2013 and not during 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' under I & B Code, 2016 70. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent refuted the allegations a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mittee of Creditor' has already considered five 'Resolution Plans' and has approved 'Resolution Plan' of 'Phoenix Theme Infra Projects LLP' in their meeting held on 19.10.2022 in accordance with Regulation 18 and 19 of IBBI and the same is pending before the 'Adjudicating Authority' for approval in I.A No, 399 of 2022 in CP (IB)/ 11/2022. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent further stated that it is a settled law that the 'Financial Creditor' i.e. the 1st Respondent herein is only entitled to its contractual determination dues and nothing more. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent alleged that on the contrary, it is the 'Appellants' who are trying to take over company through an illegal a settlement proposal/ loan and has also offered to be on the 'Board of Directors' of the 'Corporate Debtor' as indicated by the 1st Appellant. 74. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent further refuted the allegations of the 'Appellants' that the 'Respondents' are trying to take benefit of Section 32(A) of the I & B Code, 2016 get out of clutches of law for offences. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that both as per Section 32(A) of the I & B Code, 2016 as well as in terms of ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proposed by Erstwhile Promoter- Mr. Vijay Mallya who is under investigation by several agencies. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that on the contrary the I & B Code, 2016 in transparent and dignified manner facilitate chance to all to participate in 'Resolution Plan' and once it is approved by the 'Adjudicating Authority' the Respondent will get their claims settled as per approved 'Resolution Plan'. 78. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that if the 'Appellants' are so interested to take part in the management of the 'Corporate Debtor', could have participated as the 'Resolution Applicant'. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent pointed out that the very fact of the 'Appellants' not participating for 'Resolution' of the 'Corporate Debtor' indicate that their dubious intentions to work on behalf of the Erstwhile Promoters - Mr. Vijay Mallya 79. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent strongly refuted allegations of the 'Appellants' that the 2nd Respondent/ Corporate Debtor is a 'NBFC' of is a 'Financial Service Provider'. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent further stated that this argument was not taken up by the 'Appellants' in their Intervention Appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said letter do not give any directions to the 'Corporate Debtor' to get itself registered as 'CIC'. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that it made clear the 'Corporate Debtor' is not a 'NBFC'. 82. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent further submitted that the primary requirement for a company to be a 'CIC' is to hold such strategic investments in group companies. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that the 'Corporate Debtor' does not fall under the ambit of any of the arrangements mentioned therein with United Breweries Limited, since the shareholding of the 'Corporate Debtor' in United Breweries Limited is only 1.72%. Therefore, the CIC Directions, 2016 are not inapplicable to the 'Corporate Debtor'. 83. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that the 'Appellants' have relied on various decisions of the 'Apex Court' and this 'Appellate Tribunal', and emphasised that none of the decisions are applicable, since in the said cases, all the companies had valid and live registration certificates as NBFCs from the Reserve Bank of India at the time of filing of the Petition under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016. Learned Counsel for the 1st Responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....II) Whether, the shareholders can make payment to satisfy financial debt of financial creditor in order to take away the 'Corporate Debtor' from the clutches of the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process'. (III) Whether the Respondent No. 2 ('Corporate Debtor') is a Non- Banking Financial Company ('NBFC') having assets of more than Rs. 500 crores and therefore exempted from the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' ordered by the 'Adjudicating Authority'. (IV) Whether, such cases of Non- Banking Financial Company are required to be registered or can fall in the definition of 'Exemption' even without being registered with the 'Reserve Bank of India'. (V) Whether the permission of the 'Reserve Bank of India' is mandatorily to be taken prior to initiating the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' proceedings against the 'Corporate Debtor' ---- being adjudicated by the 'Adjudicating Authority'. (VI) Whether the Appellants are related parties of the suspended management as claimed by the Respondents and similarly whether the Respondents are related parties of the suspended management of the 'Corporate Debtor' as claimed by the Appellants and what is going to be impact ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....016 (16 of 2016);] (g) any derivative transaction entered into in connection with protection against or benefit from fluctuation in any rate or price and for calculating the value of any derivative transaction, only the market value of such transaction shall be taken into account; (h) any counter-indemnity obligation in respect of a guarantee, indemnity, bond, documentary letter of credit or any other instrument issued by a bank or financial institution; (i) the amount of any liability in respect of any of the guarantee or indemnity for any of the items referred to in sub-clauses (a) to (h) of this clause; (emphasis supplied) "5(26) "resolution plan" means a plan proposed by resolution applicant for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor as a going concern in accordance with Part II;" (emphasis supplied) "CHAPTER II CORPORATE INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS 6. Persons who may initiate corporate insolvency resolution process. - Where any corporate debtor commits a default, a financial creditor, an operational creditor or the corporate debtor itself may initiate corporate insolvency resolution process in respect of such corporate debtor in the manner as provide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion under sub-section (5). (7) The Adjudicating Authority shall communicate-(a) the order under clause (a) of sub-section (5) to the financial creditor and the corporate debtor; (b) the order under clause (b) of sub-section (5) to the financial creditor, within seven days of admission or rejection of such application, as the case may be." (emphasis supplied) "61. Appeals and Appellate Authority.-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act 2013 (18 of 2013), any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty days before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal: Provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period shall not exceed fifteen days. (3) An appeal against an order approving a resolution plan under section 31 may be filed on the following grounds, namely:- (i) the approved resoluti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or' and as such he is entitled to the reliefs as available in the I & B Code, 2016. ➢ In the present case, undisputedly, the 1st 'Respondent' became 'Financial Creditor' since the assignment was created with all requisite formalities and the 'Corporate Debtor' has not denied the financial transaction. In such case, the 'Adjudicating Authority' is supposed to admit Section 7 Application. ➢ It is the case of 'Appellant' that Section 7 Application was filed by the 'Financial Creditor' in collusion with the 'Corporate Debtor'. ➢ After reading Section 61(1) of the I & B Code, 2016, it becomes clear that "any person aggrieved" by the order of the 'Adjudicating Authority' may prefer an appeal to "National Company Law Appellate Tribunal". ➢ The definition of "person" has been given in Section 3(23) of the I & B Code, 2016 which includes an "individual". This does not specifically mention "shareholder". However, "individual" is wider term and can include "shareholder". ➢ Section 6 of the I & B Code, 2016 prescribes as to who may initiate 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process'. It includes a 'Financial Creditor' or an 'Operational Creditor' or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terlocutory Applications are dismissed." (emphasis supplied) ➢ It is the case of the 'Appellants' that being "shareholders", if 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' is allowed to continue their 'financial interest' will be adversely affected and therefore, they are aggrieved by the 'impugned order'. ➢ The 'Appellants' cited the judgment of P. Naveen Chakravarthy vs. Punjab National Bank" (W.P No. 27780 of 2019) and "Periasamy Palani Gounder Vs. Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan" (2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 86) to support their averments. ➢ The 'Appellants' have further argued that the interest of 'Financial Creditor' is to recover his money and to put 'Corporate Debtor' into 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' or 'Liquidation'. ➢ To protect the financial interest of a company having assets in form of shares in the other companies of more than Rs. 1000 crores, the 'Appellants' as shareholders are willing to pay the entire outstanding debt including interest. ➢ In response to a pointed query by this 'Appellate Tribunal' to the 'Appellants', whether the proposition of shareholders to settle the outstanding dues of the 'Corporate Debtor' by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....priate remedy on behalf of Umang. Moreover, if the plaintiff remains dissatisfied with the decision of IRP, has remedy before the NCLT. 22. I must however note that the aforesaid cases involved a company which was at the stage of liquidation, as distinct from Umang in the present case, against which only the insolvency process has begun. However considering the duties and role of the IRP under the IBC as discussed hereinabove, the principle in each of the aforesaid cases i.e. of the management of the company, on whose fraud/mismanagement a derivative action becomes maintainable, being no longer in power/control, and consequently a derivative action being no longer maintainable, also applies to the present case." 23. I also find a Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in Jai Rajkumar v. Stanbic Bank Ghana Ltd. 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 10472 to have held a suit by way of a derivative action to be not maintainable when the company, for whose benefit derivative action was initiated, was under insolvency. It was held that it is for the RP to act on behalf of the corporate debtor and to initiate suitable proceedings if any deemed necessary for the benefit of the corporate debtor and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d is under consideration of the 'Adjudicating Authority'. ➢ We also take into account the judgment of this 'Appellate Tribunal' wherein, it was held that the no direction can be given to any third-party for the settlement between other parties as observed in I.A. No. 642 of 2019 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 255-256 of 2018 in the matter of Punit Garg . Vs. Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., in I.A. No. 637 of 2019 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 257-258 of 2018 in the matter of Satish Seth Vs. Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. and in I.A. No. 638 of 2019 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 259-260 of 2018 in the matter of Mr. Suresh Madihally Rangachar Vs. Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. wherein this 'Appellate Tribunal' observed as under :- "45. In view of the observations made above, in an appeal filed under Section 61 of the 'I&B Code', no direction can be given to any party to the settlement (particularly the third party) to perform certain duties to ensure settlement between other parties." (emphasis supplied) ➢ Similarly, this 'Appellate Tribunal' also take note of its earlier order, where it has been held that an investor in a 'Cor....