TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....han, Advocates, for respondent no. 4 ORDER M. S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the appellant, challenging the order dt. 23.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP no.2588 of 2018. 2) He had filed the said Writ petition in his capacity of the then Executive Director of M/s GPI Textiles Limited (4th respondent). Background facts CWP no.648 of 2018 and events during the filing of the said CWP 3) The appellant had earlier filed CWP no.648 of 2018 in this Court seeking certain reliefs against the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited ( respondent no.1) & M/s Phoenix ARC Private Limited ( respondent no.2) and had impleaded the Reserve Bank of India (in short "the RBI") a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....against the 4th respondent-Company for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution process and the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT,Chandigarh Bench) had passed an order on 06.07.2018, admitting the application. 10) The appellant herein, in his capacity as Executive Director and Share Holder of the said 4th respondent-Company, had preferred Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.485 of 2018 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (in short "the NCLAT"), New Delhi, but the said appeal was dismissed on 20.12.2018 holding that the 4th respondent itself had written a letter on 19.03.2018 of its own agreeing for assignment of it's debt by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent, and so the appellant cannot raise allegations of mala fide aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2023 and approval was accorded by it to the Resolution Plan of Mr. Anil Sharma and Mr. Satvinder Singh, after the same had been approved by 100% voting share of the Committee of Creditors, and the said persons were permitted to take control of the affairs of the 4th respondent-Company. 16) One of the consequences of this approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLT is that the existing equity share capital of the 4th respondent stood written off in view of the Clean Slate Principle envisaged under the IBC. 17) So the appellant-writ petitioner ceased to be not only a share holder but also a Member of the Board of Directors of the 4th respondent. The order of the learned Singe judge in CWP.No.2588 of 2018 18) The learned Single Judge took....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Court. 22) We may point out that this contention is untenable because the observation of the Supreme Court in the said judgment at para 19.5 is that under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC, which is a very wide provision, even a Member of the erstwhile Board of Directors also has an independent right to approach the Adjudicating Authority. 23) Thus the appellant, at best, would have the right to approach the NCLT, which is the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC, and not this Court. Admittedly he had already challenged the admission of the matter by the NCLT up to the Supreme Court and lost. 24) Moreover, the instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed on 08.11.2022, prior to the order dt. 27.04.2023 passed by the NCLT approving the Resolu....