TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1716
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Adjudicating Authority) Rules 2016, stood instituted before the Learned NCLT, Hyderabad Bench, by the Appellant, in the capacity of being an Operational Creditor for the purposes of initiation of the CIRP proceedings, as against the Respondent i.e., Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, (TSIIC) the alleged Corporate Debtor. The proceedings of the Company Petition as detailed aforesaid, stood rejected by the Learned Tribunal by the Impugned Order dated 22.05.2023, along with imposition of cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- payable by the Appellant Consequentially, the present Company Appeal. 2) When this Company Appeal was taken up, before this Appellate tribunal, as fresh, this Tribunal had issued notices to the Respondent by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....favour of the Respondent and that the Joint Development Agreement had provided for a compensatory payment to be made by the Respondent to this Appellant, in case the Respondent fails to execute the sale deeds with respect to the allotted lands in favour of the Appellant as allotment of the subject land by the Respondent and the deposit of amount was subject to the outcome of the litigations pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 4) The proceedings, in respect of the subject land as above which was going on before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in AS No. 274/2007, concluded with the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh holding vide its judgment dated 19.12.2011 that the Respondent do not have title over the land ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble Apex court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Pratap Karan) and not from 2007. Aggrieved by this, Appellants filed SLP(Civil) No. 9019/2019, before Hon'ble Apex Court, seeking to reversal of the decision on interest to be paid by TSIIC. TSIIC also filed an Appeal in SLP (Civil) No. 10135/2019, challenging the order in WA 1594/2018. They were heard in Civil Appeals Nos. 317/2021 and 318/2021, by the Hon'ble Apex Court and finally Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 17.02.2021, ordered that Appellant be paid Rs. 165 Crores along with interest compounded at SBI-PLR from the respective dates of deposit with TSIIC, the interest payable will not be compounded, the amount already deposited with the Registry of Hon'ble Apex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned NCLT passed the impugned order dismissing the Company Petition and imposing a cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- on Appellants. The relevant parts of the impugned order are extracted below: - "8. The copy of the additional affidavit dated 05.12.2022, which was filed by the General Manager (AM) legal of the TSIIC, before the Civil Court at Gurgoan, further discloses that a sum of Rs. 456,39,88,858.01/- was payable to M/s Unitech Limited (Corporate Debtor) as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2021 dated 17.02.2021, and the same has been paid to the Unitech Limited, as per the details mentioned in the said affidavit. 9. Therefore, it is as clear as crystal, that over and above the amount claimed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appellants that though TSIIC had paid the entire amount due pursuant to the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, it has failed to register the JDA, even though it retained the assessed stamp duty amount for the same, (that imposition of cost of Rs. 5,00,000/-) is in non-compliance of direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Bhupender Singh Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd. Where moratorium was imposed on 20.01.2020, against institution of proceedings against Unitech, that Hyderabad office is non-functional since 2015 and instruction to counsels could not be given in time, that since erstwhile BOD was superseded and new BOD was put in place, proper instructions to withdraw the petition could not be given by the new management in time because Uni....