TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1200
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned Counsel for the 'Petitioner'/ 'Appellant', the 'Petitioner'/ 'Appellant', is a `recognised Financial Institution', within the meaning of Section 2(h) (ia) of the 'Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993', as well as, a 'Secured Creditor', coming within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (zd) (iii) of the 'SARFAESI Act, 2002'. 3. The Learned Counsel for the 'Petitioner'/ 'Appellant', points out that the `L & T Investments Limited' ("the Original Lender"), along with `L & T Infra Investment Partners', had provided the `Financial Assistance' (Facility) to M/s Regen Infrastructure and Services Private Limited ('RISPL'/ '4th Respondent), by subscribing to `Optionally Convertible Debentures' (`OCDs'), issued by the '4th Respondent' / 'RISPL', amounting to Rs.349.40 Crores. In fact, the `Original Lender', had subscribed to `OCDs', amounting to Rs.269.40 Crores and `L & T Infra Investment Partners', had subscribed to `OCDs', amounting to Rs. 80 Crores. 4. The Learned Counsel for the 'Petitioner'/ 'Appellant', brings it to the 'Notice' of this 'Tribunal', that, the 'Facility'/ 'OCDs', are secured, inter alia, by 'Mortgage', over the Rs. 4th Respondent's 'Leasehold Rights', of the `Fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, in its favour. 9. The Learned Counsel for the 'Petitioner'/ 'Appellant', contends that the effect of the 'Impugned Order', passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench - II, Chennai', in IA(IBC)/400(CHE)/2021 in IBA/1099/2019, dated 30/05/2020, is that the 'Lenders' of the Rs. 1st Respondent', will hold the charge to the exclusion of the `Lenders' of the Rs. 4th Respondent', and in fact, the 'Petitioner'/ 'Appellant', had lost the means, to enforce its `Security Interest', for recovery of its `Outstanding Dues', aggregating in all, a sum of Rs.238,17,94,723/-, as of 27/12/2019. 10. The Learned Counsel for the 'Petitioner'/ 'Appellant', therefore, prays for 'Granting of Leave', to the 'Petitioner' / 'Appellant', to prefer the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 325 of 2022, before this 'Tribunal', in furtherance `Substantial Cause of Justice'. 11. The Learned Counsel for the 'Petitioner' / 'Appellant', relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in `Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai, Advocate General of Maharashtra, Bombay', reported in 1970 (2) SCC Page 484 at Spl Page 489, wherein, at Paragraphs 6 and 7, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....compensation for the acquired lands similar to his own while he is denied of such higher compensation for his land because of operation of Section 18 read with Section 31 of the Act resulting in affectation of his pecuniary interest in his acquired land directly and adversely by that award of the Collector made under section 11. As such he becomes an aggrieved person entitled to avail of the right and remedy conferred upon him under Section 28-A(1) to make good his denied right to receive compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector / LAO. Any interested person in the land acquired under the same notification published under Section 4(1) who failed to avail the right and remedy under Section 18(1) read with second proviso to Section 31(2), becomes a person aggrieved under Section 28-A(1) of the Act, when the owner of the another land covered by the same notification is awarded higher compensation by the Civil Court on a reference got made by him under Section 18." 13. The Learned Counsel for the 'Petitioner' / 'Appellant' , refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in `Shobha Suresh Jumani v. Appellate Tribunal, Forfeited Property & Anr.', rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and therefore, cannot take umbrage of the `Ingredients of Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016', which in no manner, entitles the `Petitioner / Appellant', to prefer the instant 'Appeal', before this `Tribunal'. 16. The Learned Counsel for the '1st Respondent', points out that there can be `no Claim', that 'Fraudulent Transactions', ought to be excused, contrary to the explicit Provisions of the 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016', on the basis of the mandate to balance the `interest of Stakeholders'. 17. The Learned Counsel for the '1st Respondent', brings it to the 7'Notice' of this 'Tribunal', that when 'RISPL', had already preferred an 'Appeal', the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 325 of 2022, filed by the 'Petitioner'/ 'Appellant' (the `Controlling Stakeholder'), in the `Committee of Creditors' of `RISPL', is a gross abuse of the process of `Law', as it cannot be the case of the 'Petitioner'/ 'Appellant', that it is canvassing any case, different from that of 'RISPL', in its 'Appeal'. 18. The Learned Counsel for the '1st Respondent'/ 'Petitioner', takes a prime plea that the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 325 of 2022, is filed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 'RISPL', had preferred an 'Appeal', before this 'Tribunal', and hence, the 'Petitioner'/ 'Appellant', in the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 325 of 2022, as 'Controlling Stakeholder', is not entitled to put forward any case, other than that of 'RISPL', in the instant 'Appeal'. 24. It must be borne in mind, that when 'RISPL', itself, had no 'Rights', in the 'Properties', the aspect of any 'Rights', having been vested on the same, to and in favour of the 'Petitioner'/ 'Appellant', by the 'Security', created by 'RISPL', will not arise. In any event, the 'Impugned Order', dated 30/05/2022 in IA(IBC)/400(CHE)/2021 in IBA/1099/2019, passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench - II, Chennai', does not take away the 'Rights' of 'Petitioner'/ 'Appellant', in any manner. 25. In the light of foregoing upshot, this `Tribunal', on a careful consideration of the divergent contentions advanced on either side, all the more, when 'RISPL', itself , had no rights in the 'Properties' in question, any 'Rights', having been vested on the same, to and in favour of the 'Petitioner' / 'Appellant', by 'Security', created by 'RISPL', does not ari....