TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 677
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (IB)-39(PB)/2018 was filed jointly by the Administrator of Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India (hereinafter referred as SUUTI) and its sister concern M/s UTI Trust Private Limited under Section 7 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter called IBC, 2016) seeking initiation of CIRP against M/s Modern Syntex (India) Limited (hereinafter referred as 'Corporate Debtor'). The said application was allowed as per order dated 23.8.2022, and Mr. Partha Sarathy Sarkar was appointed as IRP, who was later confirmed as Resolution Professional (hereinafter called as 'RP') by the Committee of Creditors (hereinafter called as 'CoC'). 3. In the IA filed before the Adjudicating Authority (hereinafter referred as 'AA'), the applicant had submitted that RP had not verified the claim of SUUTI from the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor and has ignored the One Time Settlement (OTS) dated 23.10.2008 and the balance sheet of the corporate debtor and only an amount of Rs. 34,80,96,657/- was payable to SUUTI by the Corporate Debtor. It was submitted that in the year 1994-95, SUUTI had sanctioned/ subscribed to the unsecured redeemable Non-convertible Debentures of Rs.53.85 Crores....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cant (SRA) who has to bear the cost of Resolution Plan, including payments to the creditors following the provisions of Section 53 of IBC, 2016, and ex-Management has no financial stake regarding this. 7. IA No. 2076 of 2024 was then filed by Mr. Kamal Ranka, erstwhile Director and share-holder of Corporate Debtor seeking impleadment in the said appeal and it was submitted that Mr. Kamal Ranka is a promoter and majority shareholder and a proper necessary party in the said appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant cited following decisions to support his contention that an Erstwhile Director can file appeal. (i) Vijay Kumar vs. Standard Chartered Bank & Ors. (2019) 20 SCC 455 (ii) Innoventive Industries Limited vs. ICICI Bank & Anr. (2018) SCC 407 (iii) Nandamuri Meenalatha vs. M/s Quality Steels and Wire Products & Anr. Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 11 of 2023 8. From perusal of the above judgments, it is seen that none of the judgment relates to the issue of claim of financial creditor. As noted earlier, the present appeal was filed by an independent director who by no stretch of imagination can be considered as aggrieved person regarding acceptance of claim of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal has filed Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1340 of 2023 before this Tribunal challenging the order passed by NCLT appointing Mr. Ankit Goel as the Resolution Professional. The present Resolution Professional submitted that Mr. Partha Sarthy Sarkar is not cooperating and has not handed over the records to him. Shri Ankit Goel submitted as under: "It is pertinent to state that the Respondent No. 1 herein is appointed in the capacity of the Resolution Professional. Hence, the Respondent No. 1 shall proceed in accordance with the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is pertinent to state that the Respondent No. 1 does not have access to necessary documents to substantiate on the manner of acceptance of claim by the erstwhile RP in absence of handover not being provided." 12. In his oral and written submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 2, the Learned Counsel submitted as under: i) The present Appeal is not maintainable as the Appellant cannot be a person aggrieved under Section 61(1) of the IBC as he is an independent Director and there cannot be any question of any loss being caused to the Appellant. ii) As per Section 149(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, an independ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore NCLT and the Appeal thereof was to delay the proceedings of resolution. The CoC had approved the resolution plan on 13.03.2023 and immediately thereafter the said IA was filed by the Appellant. xiii) It was submitted that Respondent No. 2 is a Statutory Entity and functions under the control and supervision of the Central Government and deals with public funds and monies and its accounts are rigorously maintained and scrutinised. The Respondent No. 2 supported the claim filed by it. 13. In its Rejoinder, the Appellant reiterated the submissions made earlier and further stated as under : "The submissions of the Respondent no. 2 alleging valid and natural cancellation of the OTS dated 12.08.2009 cannot be sustained in view of the fact that there existed no default / termination clause rather there existed only a Rate of Interest for delayed OTS payment clause meaning that the Respondent no. 2 had no power to revoke the OTS dated 23.10.2008 unilaterally. As per Clause D of the OTS dated 23.10.2008 (which is being reproduced herein for the ready reference of this Hon'ble Tribunal) the Respondent no. 2 was entitled to levying of interest @ 12% p.a. for the delayed period in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he event of default, in making the payments as per the Settlement or dishonour of any cheque, we shall have the right to revoke the above OTS package, reverse the waiver of dues and restore the liabilities as per the original Agreement/Documents. In case of our exercising the right of revocation, the OTS package sanctioned as above shall be treated as withdrawn and all the terms and conditions of the original Agreements/documents shall come into force as if, no such OTS package was ever granted to the Company." 14.6 We note that in the order of admission under Section 7 dated 28.03.2022 it has been noted in para 6 as under: "The Financial Creditors have submitted that the total outstanding financial debt as on 15.11.2017, along with interest, amounts to Rs. 33,00,34,87,999.99/- (Rupees Three Thousand Three Hundred Crores Thirty-Four Lacs Eighty-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Nine and Ninety Nine Paise Only)." 14.7 The admission order further noted in para 9 the submissions of the petitioners and noted in sub-para 'b' as under: "b. The Petitioners further submitted that the OTS sanctioned by the Petitioner No. 1 in terms of its letter dated 23.10.2008 was cancelled i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....83/- lacs, letter dated 04.07.2014 giving outstanding as on 31.05.2014 of Rs. 169213.09/- lacs and letter dated 29.01.2015 giving outstanding as on 31.12.2014 of Rs. 189420.62/- lacs. The copy of letter dated 29.01.2015 is scanned below for ready reference : 14.15 From the documents available on record it is clear that the OTS of 2008 was revoked on 12th August, 2009 and thereafter Respondent No. 2 had been periodically intimating the Corporate Debtor regarding the amounts due from it. The impugned order in para 10 also noted that Balance Sheet of the Corporate Debtor contains the following clause: "11, SUUTI & UTI MF has restored the total liabilities due to default in payment of OTS amount and have intimated the outstanding dues of Rs. 2,41,038.59 Lacs including unsecured debts, dues of SUUTI & UTI MF, overdue & penal interest etc. as per their records as on 31st March, 2017. However, SUUTI and UTI MF have not provided balance confirmation as on 31st March, 2020. The company has disputed the entire dues of SUUTI and in the process of renegotiating the OTS proposal with them, pending which, unpaid liability of Rs. 1,360.00 Lacs is kept in books of accounts as per earlier settl....