TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1940
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Mr. Rajeev Chowdhary, Ms. Anjali Singh, Mr. Prahlad Balaji, Mr. Pragyan Mishra, Advocates for R-1. Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Mr. Vishal Gehrana, Mr. Varun Khanna, Ms. Aakriti Vohra and Mr. Devang, Advocates for R2. Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Mr. Anchit Jasuja, Advocates for R-3. Mr. Satish Kumar Gupta, RP. Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate for the Applicant in IA No.6020 of 2023 Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Advocates for Applicant in IA No. 254 of 2023. Present: For the Appellant: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashim Sood, Mr. Deepak Joshi, Mr. Isha Khurana, Mr. Prateek Kundu, Mr. Varun Tyagi, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Mr. Anshul Sehgal, Mr. Pranshu Paul, Mr. Suvana Kashyap, Mr. Ankur, Ms. Maitreyee Mishra, Advocates for AMNS. For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Sen, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Mr. Rajeev Chowdhary, Ms. Anjali Singh, Mr. Prahlad Balaji, Mr. Pragyan Mishra, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Ms. Srishti Juneja, Ms. Suganda Kochar, Ms. Lavanya, Advocates for Applicant in IA. No. 705 of 2022 Mr. Sujeve Deora, Advocate in IA No.6019 of 2023. Mr. Vishal Gehrana, Ms. Aakriti Vohra, Advocates for R2. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors. After the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Essar Steel was acquired by the Resolution Applicant and its name was changed as Arcelormittal Nippon Steel India Ltd., who is the Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1043 of 2020. After completion of the insolvency proceedings against the erstwhile Essar Steel, SIFL filed an IA No.245 of 2020 before the NCLT Ahmedabad, which application was allowed by an order dated 10.11.2020. The NCLT Ahmedabad vide its impugned order, directed Arcelormittal Nippon to pay right to use charges as CIRP cost. 3. For CIRP of another company - Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infrastructure Ltd. ("OSPIL"), IDBI Bank filed an under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") on 09.03.2018, which application was transferred to NCLT Cuttack and Adjudicating Authority, NCLT Cuttack passed an order on 14.05.2019, admitting Section 7 application filed by IDBI Bank and initiated CIRP. On 06.12.2019, the CoC of OSPIL approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Arcelor Mittal India Pvt. Ltd. by 100% vote shares. The Plan approval application filed under Section 31, was approved by NCLT Cuttack vide order dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed to hear the parties. Parties were also allowed time to file objections to the various applications for impleadment/ interventions pending in the Appeal. 6. Parties were heard on the aforesaid IAs. After hearing the parties on the aforesaid IAs, orders were reserved in IAs, except IA No.6019 of 2023, on 20.05.2023. Order was also reserved in IA No.6019 of 2023 on 22.05.2025. We now need to notice the details of the application and the prayers made in the above IAs. Interlocutory Application No. 705 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1043 of 2020 7. This application has been filed by Srei Multiple Asset Investment Trust praying for impleadment in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1043 of 2020 with several other prayers. The Applicant - Srei Multiple Asset Investment Trust (hereinafter referred to as the "Trust") claims to be erstwhile shareholder of OSPIL, pre-CIRP, holding equity shares to the extent of 69.80%. The Applicant seeks impleadment in the Appeal pleading that under the impugned order dated 10.11.2020, the OSPIL has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.1300 crores as right to use charges of the slurry pipeline, which amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of pre-CIRP, have extinguished under the Resolution Plan. The Applicant is neither the necessary nor proper party to the proceedings. Application has been filed with mala fide intent to re-litigate the issues already decided and is nothing but abuse of process of law. The Applicant Trust having already challenged the Plan approval order dated 02.03.2020 of OSPIL unsuccessfully before this Tribunal, which Appeal was dismissed on 18.01.2022 and not further agitated by the Applicant, the Applicant cannot seek impleadment in these Appeal(s). It is pleaded that Appeal(s) arise out of an order passed on 10.11.2020 by the Adjudicating Authority on an application filed by Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd., who is already contesting the Appeal and the Applicant has no right or interest in the subject matter of the Appeal and the application needs to be rejected. It is further pleaded that Applicant is not a juristic entity and is barred from filing the impleadment application in its own name. It is pleaded that Applicant has made several reliefs in the application without being party to the proceedings, which is not permissible. It is pleaded that Applicant has filed various frivolous appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to OSPIL. The Applicant pleads that the Appeal filed by the Appellant needs to be rejected in limini and the Appellant is not a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 61. The interim order dated 04.12.2020 passed in this Appeal is a nullity in law, void ab initio. In the application, the Applicant Mr. Vir Jai Khosla prays for following reliefs: "i. Taking on record the submissions made by the intervenor, acting suo motu, recall the order dated 04-12-2020 passed in the present appeal, given that it was passed under Section 61 of the IBC 'without jurisdiction' at the instance of an appellant that cannot possibly claim to be 'a party aggrieved', but who played fraud upon this Hon'ble Tribunal, by knowingly making a false assertion to the effect that it is 'a person aggrieved' while knowing it to be false. ii. Consequently, vacate also the stay order dated 08-12-2020 passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1043 of 2020, given that it was passed ex-parte without examining the merits in that appeal, merely on the strength of the order dated 04-12-2020 passed in the present appeal, on the mischievously-advanced premise that the issues contained in that appeal a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich then must go for distribution to the Operational Creditors (like the Applicants), and the Resolution Plan for OSPIL must be set aside. It is pleaded in the application that order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.11.2019 (supra) is flawed and needs intervention. The Applicants alleged certain errors in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.11.2019 as referred to in the application. In the application, following prayers have been made: i. "Take judicial notice of the submissions made by the applicant (as an intervenor) in these proceedings that now already form part of the official record of this Hon'ble Tribunal, and pass appropriate orders on such submissions already placed on record, irrespective of whether the applicant is eventually permitted to be impleaded or not. ii. Permit the applicant the exercise of his right under Order I (Rule 8A) of the CPC to take such further part in oral arguments on the questions of law that arise in these proceedings as may be deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Tribunal. iii. Allow impleadment of the applicant as Respondent No. 4 in the present appeal, in terms of (proposed) Memo of Parties (II) app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e filed similar applications before various other Fora with a similar attempt to reopen the Essar Steel and OSPIL, CIRP. Many of the applications have been dismissed and in certain applications, observations have been made that Applicants lack locus. The Applicants have not made out any case of agitating any interest in these proceedings. The Applicants right against Essar Steel as Operational Creditors stood extinguished, pursuant to approval of the Plan. The Applicants interpretation of Order I (Rule 8A) of the CPC would render the proceedings under the Code unworkable, as it would allow all and sundry to claim a right of hearing in any proceedings, regardless of whether they have any interest therein. It is submitted that Review Petitions against judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.11.2019 were also dismissed on 02.06.2020. One Review Petition filed by one M/s PALCO Recycle Industries Ltd. ("PALCO") was also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 02.06.2020, one of the Member of the Association as claimed in the application is PALCO, who has unsuccessfully filed the Review Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that CIRP of the OSPIL also was comple....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceeding, who was never party to any proceedings before the NCLT. The Applicant according to own admission has become shareholder in June 2022, well after the completion of CIRP of Essar Steel and after passing of the order dated 10.11.2020, against which Appeal was filed and the issue sought to be raised by the Applicant is wholly outside the scope of the Appeal. The Applicant has no interest in the subject matter of the Appeal. The Applicant has failed to show any bona fide in the application. Various un-substantive, false and frivolous allegations have been made in the application, which has no legs to stand. The Applicant is totally stranger as a third party. The application needs to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 17. We have heard Shri Gaurav Mitra, learned Counsel in IA No. 705 of 2023 and IA No. 254 of 2023 filed by Srei Multiple Asset Investment Trust; Shri Deepak Khosla, learned Counsel appearing in IA No.6020 of 2023 for Mr. Vir Jai Khosla and IA No. 217 of 2025 filed by Gujarat Operational Creditors Association and Anr.; Shri Sujeve Deora, learned Counsel appearing in IA No.6019 of 2023; Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Appellants in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvening is purely related to a question of law, hence, he can have no grievance with regard to final outcome of the matter. It is submitted that no locus is required to be demonstrated to report knowledge of breaches of law. If in any proceeding, there is illegality, any person can come forward to assist the Court without any locus standi being an issue standing in his way of being an informant. It is prayed that IA No.6020 of 2023 be allowed. 20. Shri Khosla in support of IA No. 217 of 2025 filed on behalf of Gujarat Operational Creditors Association & Anr. Submits that it's constituents were all erstwhile Operational Creditors of Essar Steel, who received on 16.12.2019 only 20.50% of their admitted claims. Order approving Resolution Plan was passed without jurisdiction with collusion of CoC. The Appellant committed fraud in the CIRP of Essar Steel as well as OSPIL. Shri Khosla submits that the principles laid down by the Dehi High Court in Prem Kumar Gupta vs. Bank of India - (2015) 130 SCL 489 (Delhi) is to be applied. It is submitted that principles, which are laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for conducting a proceeding, can very well be applied by this Tribunal and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f non-inclusion of the RTU charges payable to OSPIL as part of CIRP costs. Under order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court large amount being unduly collected by the Financial Creditors, even though they had no right to the entire amount. It is submitted that net actual debt was only Rs.4,754 crores. The lenders have appropriated larger amount. If the amount taken by lenders, comes back to the Essar Steel, the Essar Steel valuation shall increase. 22. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant refuting the submissions of the Applicants contended that none of the Applicants are entitled to be impleaded or permitted to intervene in these Appeal(s). It is submitted that the Applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties to be impleaded, nor has any locus to intervene in the matter. Shri Kaul submits that all applications have been filed with mala fide intention and deserve to be rejected with exemplary costs. Applicants have no interest in subject matter. Replying to the submission of Shri Gaurav Mitra made on behalf of SMAIT, it is submitted that Applicant SMAIT claim itself erstwhile shareholder of OSPIL and by approval of the Resolution Plan of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of applications have been filed by Gujarat Operational Creditors Association before the NCLT Ahmedabad and the Gujarat High Court. The Applicant has unsuccessfully filed various applications, some of which were dismissed with costs. The Applicant, who has no locus to be impleaded in the Appeal, have been filing frivolous applications and is trying to re-agitate and litigate the issues, which have already become final upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot be allowed to reopen the issues. Replying to the submissions of Mr. Deora, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Applicant - Muhammad Ali Sheikh according to own showing is shareholder of Arcelor Mittal SA (Luxembourg), the holding company of the Appellant and he has only 85 equity shares of Arcelor Mittal SA (Luxembourg), which he obtained in June 2022. The Applicant has no locus to intervene in the CIRP of Essar Steel and OSPIL. The application filed by Muhammad Ali Sheikh is vexatious and frivolous and the application deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Applicant has no right or interest in the present Appeal(s). 23. We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and have peru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by approval of the plan by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After plan was implemented, I.A. No.245/2020 was filed by the SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited giving rise to the impugned order. Applicant being not party to the proceedings before the NCLT, Ahmedabad has come up with the above mentioned applications in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1038/2020 & 1043/2020, praying for impleadment as party respondent 25. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on principles as enshrined in Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is submitted that under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court can direct for joining a party as plaintiff or defendant who was present before the Court in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and consider all questions involved in the suit. 26. NCLT & NCLAT are constituted under the Companies Act 2013. Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides for procedure before Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal. Section 424(1) and 424(2) are as follows: "424. Procedure before Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal. - (1) The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not, while disposing of any p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....L 489 DEL]. Hon'ble Delhi High Court was considering a writ petition challenging the order of the DRAT. In the above context, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has occasion to consider the provision of Section 19 and Section 22 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as '1993 Act'). Section 22 of 1993 Act vested the same power of the Civil Court in the DRT & DRAT, which are akin to Section 424 sub-Section (2). In paragraphs 23 & 25 of the judgment following was laid down: "23. The litigation brought before a Debts Recovery Tribunal essentially involves a civil dispute. It concerns primarily the claim of a bank or a financial institution to "a debt" which it seeks to recover from the person impleaded as a defendant. In dealing with such an application instituted before it by a bank or financial institution, the DRT may not be strictly bound by the procedure laid down in the Code o Civil Procedure or may have been vested with the power to regulate its own procedure. But there is nothing in the statutory provisions to indicate that the procedure which RT adopts may be what it fancies. 25. The clauses (f) and (g) of Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... question which need to be considered is as to what are conditions for requirement which need to be fulfilled by a third-party for permitting it to be impleaded by Court in a proceeding pending before this Tribunal. The provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 sub-Rule (2) had come for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of cases. Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments has noticed the principles for exercise of discretion by the Court while considering an application for adding a party under Order 1, Rule 10 sub-Rule (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 32. The first judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which we need to notice is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR [1958 SC 886] in the matter of 'Razia Begum', Vs. 'Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Ors.'. Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of the principles for adding a party in proceeding had laid down that a person may be added as a party to a suit who has a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, it has been held: "9. ...There cannot be the least doubt that it is firmly established as a result of judicial decisions that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Hon'ble Supreme Court, which had elaborately dealt the subject is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in [(1992) 2 SCC 524] in the matter of 'Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal' Vs. 'Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors.'. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case had occasion to consider appeal where Trial Court had impleaded Respondent No. 2 in a suit instituted by the appellant challenging validity of notice issued by Municipal Corporation, in which R-2 who had given a lease of the land to appellant, had filed an application for impleadment, which was allowed. Writ petition challenging the said order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court, which order was challenged. Only question which came for consideration has been noticed in paragraph 1 of the judgment, which is as follows: "1. We have to consider in this appeal the question whether respondent 2 is a necessary or proper party to be joined as defendant under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the suit instituted by the appellant against respondent 1." 37. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the intervenor has cause of action against the plaintiff relating to subject matter of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest in solution or some question involved and he has thought of similar arguments to advanced. It was held that it is necessary that a person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer i.e., he can say that litigation may lead to a result which will affect legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. It was held that it is difficult to say that rule contemplates joining as a defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action. In paragraph 14 of the judgment, following has been laid down: "14. It cannot be said that the main object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions though it may incidentally have that effect. But that appears to be a desirable consequence of the rule rather than its main objective. The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness. It is not merely that he has an interest in the correct solution of some question involved and has thought of relevant arguments to advance. The only reason which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... if any, either in favour of the appellant or against the appellant would be binding on this respondent. It is true that being lessee of the premises, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited has an answer for the action proposed by the Municipal Corporation against the appellant, but for the purpose of granting the relief sought for by the appellant by examining the justification of the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation, it is not necessary for the Court to consider that answer. If that be so, the presence of the respondent cannot be considered as necessary for the purpose of enabling the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The appellant is proceeded against by the Municipal Corporation for the alleged action in violation of the municipal laws. The grievance of the respondent against the appellant, if any, could only be for violation of the agreement and that is based on a different cause of action. The consolidation of these two in the same suit is neither contemplated nor permissible." 42. Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order impleading Hindustan Petroleum Corporation in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itle between the plaintiff-appellant on one hand and Respondents 2 and 3 and Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 on the other..." 45. The next judgment need to be noticed is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Mumbai International Airport Private Limited' Vs. 'Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Private Limited & Ors.' reported in [(2010) 7 SCC 417]. Justice R.V. Raveendran speaking for the Court has elaborately dealt the subject. A suit was filed by Airport Authority of India against Convention Centre & Hotel Private Limited. Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd. was entrusted the work of modernisation of the Airport. Mumbai International Airport Private Limited filed an application for being added as a respondent in the suit alleging that its interest was likely to be directly affected if the relief is granted to the first respondent plaintiffs in the suit. Learned Single Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellant which order was also affirmed by the Division Bench. The question came for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether appellant was necessary or proper party to the suit of specific performance filed by first respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ient to hold that appellant has any right or interest. In paragraph 29 following has been observed: "29. ...The fact that if AAI succeeded in the suit, the suit land may also be leased to the appellant is not sufficient to hold that the appellant has any right, interest or a semblance of right or interest in the suit property. When the appellant is neither claiming any right or remedy against the first respondent and when the first respondent is not claiming any right or remedy against the appellant, in a suit for specific performance by the first respondent against AAI, the appellant cannot be a party. The allegations that the land is crucial for a premier airport or in public interest, are not relevant to the issue." 48. From the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above, following are few principles which are discernible, which can be applied for exercise of discretion by the Court, while considering an application for impleadment of a third-party in a proceeding; i. The party seeking impleadment must establish that it has a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest in the subject matter of the litigation. [Para 14(2) of 'Razia ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... SIFL, who had filed IA No.245 of 2017 is neither a necessary party in the appeal nor a proper party. It is further pleaded that with implementation of the resolution plan of ESIL and OSPIL, the entire claim of SIFL has been satisfied. It is further pleaded in Para 3(c) of the application that there is illegality committed by the Resolution Professional of OSPIL and Resolution Professional of ESIL. The Appellant - ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. (AMNSIL) is liable to be liquidated under Section 33(4) of the Code and all respondents are liable to be criminally prosecuted. It is useful to extract following part of Para 3(c) of the application: "If the former, then AMNSIL is liable to be liquidated immediately under Section 33 (4) of the Code (2016). And if the latter, then this orchestration of 'liquidation fraud' by all these Respondent companies and all the respondents arrayed herein, in criminally-prosecutable conspiratorial collusion with the 2 Resolution Professionals involved, renders all of them liable to the penal consequences of 'liquidation fraud'." 51. The Applicant in the application has also pleaded that appeal need to be dismis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s follows:- "7. The Resolution Applicant has submitted eligibility under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Therefore, the Resolution Applicant alongwith its nominees shall hold 100% of the shares of the Corporate Debtor." 54. In paragraph 3 of the order summary of the total financial proposal has been extracted. Final proposal in the Resolution Plan has been noticed with regard to SIFL in which following is noticed:- Particulars Amount (INR) SIFL Debt to the permanently settled, discharged, and extinguished in full and reduced to NIL by payment of: INR 3,216,000,000.00 ("Upfront SIFL Debt Discharge Amount") being 100% of the principal amounts verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional. 55. It is relevant to notice that challenging the order dated 02.03.2020 passed by the NCLT, Cuttack approving the Resolution Plan of OSPIL, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.593 of 2020 was filed being "SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust VS IDBI Bank Limited & Ors.". In the appeal filed by the Applicant approval of Resolution Plan was challenged on the ground that the Resolution Plan has provided NIL payment to applicant who is sharehol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the payment made to the ESIL for the CCDs which was classified as a Financial Debt, cannot be equated as a payment made to ESIL in the capacity as an equity. CONCLUSION: 55. All the issues answered against the Appellant. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Appellant has not made out any case and a futile exercise in filing this Appeal. The Appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No orders as to cost. shareholder." 57. The judgment of this Tribunal dated 18.01.2022 was not further challenged by the Applicant and the said judgment became final between the Applicant and other Respondents who was arrayed in the Appeal. From the above, it is clear that Applicant as shareholder of OSPIL had agitated its claim of payment for its equity shareholding in the OSPIL in the CIRP of OSPIL which claim was negated and it was held that Applicant is entitled for NIL payment as against its shareholding of 69.80%. In the present application, Applicant is again agitating/raising issue regarding its entitled payment by virtue of its shareholding of 69.80%. 58. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Ed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d already agitated its right to receive payment under Resolution Plan and filed an appeal in this Tribunal being Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.593 of 2020 which was dismissed on 18.01.2022 and the said order having become final applicant cannot claim any interest in the subject matter of litigation. We have noticed above the contents of the application and various averments made in the application. In the application, applicant is raising question and challenged to CIRP of Essar and OSPIL which has already become final and concluded. Various averments made in the application indicate applicant's clear attempt to reopen and re-agitate matters which have finally and conclusively decided. Applicant's endeavor is clear that it is trying to expand the contours of the present proceeding and trying to raise various issue which are not subject matter of present proceeding. While considering the Question No. 1, we have already noticed the ratio of various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which lays down the conditions which need to be fulfilled by the Applicant seeking impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. Applicant does not fulfill the necessary conditions as enumerated abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditor of ESIL (now re-named as AMNSIL), whose name figures at serial No. 1152 of the document titled List of Creditors of Essar Steel Ltd, ESSAR STEEL INDIA LIMITED, Summary of Status of Claims from Creditors as of 05 March 2019 (List of Creditors Version 17), and whose claim as on 02-08-2017, was acknowledged by the ESIL RP at Rs. 2.41 crores (precisely, at Rs. 2,40,66,551). Today, its claim, with interest, comes to Rs. 7.82 crores, for which a part stands irrevocably assigned /transferred to Petitioner No. 2 under Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act (1882). 4. The Applicant No. 2 is M/s Sayam Shares and Securities (P) Ltd, herein, 'SSSL')], who is an assignee/ transferee of part of actionable claims from certain (allegedly-erstwhile) 'operational creditors' and (allegedly-erstwhile) shareholders' of ESIL under Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act (1882), including assignment of part of actionable claim of M/s Palco Recycle Industries Ltd. The total value of claims of (allegedly-erstwhile) 'operational creditors and (allegedly-erstwhile) shareholders of ESIL comes to a cumulative amount of Rs. 164.15 crores. It respectfully refrains ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to their Application, claiming to be Association of erstwhile Operational Creditors, they have no right and the prayer seeking impleadment cannot be acceded to. We have also noticed that Application contains various averments which are much beyond scope of the issues which are subject matter of litigation. Applicants' endeavor is to re-agitate and reopen the issues which have already become final between the parties. Any such endeavor by any such Applicants cannot be accepted to be basis for impleadment in the proceedings. In the reply file to the Application, Appellant has also referred to various proceedings which have been initiated by Applicants before the NCLT Ahmedabad and Gujarat High Court, including filing of various contempt proceedings. Contempt proceeding initiated by Applicants before NCLT Ahmedabad has been dismissed observing that Applicant No. 1 and 2 had no locus to maintain the said proceeding which details have specifically pleaded in paragraphs 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the reply. However, we, in the present application, have to consider the locus of the Applicants to be impleaded in the Appeal. While considering Question No. 1, we have already noticed the necessary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with regard to assets of the OSPIL and with regard to ownership of the pipeline. Admittedly, Applicant was not part of any proceedings before NCLT or NCLAT and on basis of he being shareholder of Arcelor Mittal SA (Luxembourg) is claiming impleadment in present proceeding. The Appellant has filed detailed reply to the Application and it has been pleaded that the Applicant claims to be shareholder of foreign entity which is stranger to the proceeding. It is pleaded that Applicant lacks complete bonafide and it is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. We, thus, are fully satisfied that Applicant has no direct interest in the subject matter of litigation and is clear stranger to the entire proceeding emanating from impugned order dated 10.11.2020 passed by NCLT Ahmedabad as well as Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1043 of 2020 filed in this Tribunal. Filing of such application by the Applicant is clearly an abuse of process of the Court. According to own case of the Applicant, he purchased 85 shares of foreign entity in June 2022. The order impugned was passed on 10.11.2020 and these Appeals have been filed in the year 2020 itself and pending in this Tribunal from 2020. After....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. Any further interim order or direction which this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be issued in favour of the appellant." 66. Applicant in the Application claimed to be shareholder of SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. (SIFL). Applicant claims to be intervener intervening under Order 1 Rule 8A of CPC. It is useful to extract Paragraph 1 of the Application, which is as follows:- 1. That the applicant is Mr. Vir Jai Khosla, who is / was a shareholder in SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd (Respondent No. 2 hereto). He is an intervenor, who is intervening in the present appeal under Order 1 (Rule 8A) of the CPC, as he is aggrieved by two questions of law that have arisen in the present appeal, which, in the public interest (i.e. conservation of judicial time), are imperative to be addressed by this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal before proceeding further i.e.: Question No. 1: Whether the appellant herein [M/s Arcelor Mittal India (P) Ltd), be allowed to maintain the present appeal after 15-03-2023, or in any event, any further, given that by order dated 15-03-2023 passed by Hon'ble NCLT (Ahmedabad) (Annexure ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P shareholding. We have already noticed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra (supra) which clearly provides that the claims of all stakeholders stand extinguished except those provided in the Resolution Plan. SIFL as lender of the Corporate Debtors has received its payout under the plan, no rights of any pre-CIRP shareholder subsist after approval of Resolution Plan so as to initiate any proceeding. 68. Shri Deepak Khosla, Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant-Mr. Vir Jai Khosla has relied on Order 1 Rule 8A of CPC to contend that by virtue of Order 1 Rule 8A, Applicant is entitled to advance his submission on question of law which has arisen in the Appeal. It is submitted that it is in the public interest that Applicant may be permitted to address on question of law. The question to be answered is as to whether intervention as allowed in Order 1 Rule 8A need to be accepted giving right to Applicant to make his submission on question of law as contended by Applicant. Order 1 Rule 8A in the Code of Civil Procedure has been inserted by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 w.e.f. 01.02.1977. Order 1 Rule 8A is as follows:- "ORDER 1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt on any matter of which the Court may take judi-cial cognizance. (Bouvier citing 8 Coke 15)" 72. We, thus, are of the view that the power under Rule 8A empowers the Court to seek assistance on a question of law from a person or body of persons. This provision cannot be used as right for any person to claim that he is entitled to give its opinion to the Court on any question of law involved in a case. We, thus, are of the view that Rule 8A needs to be applied keeping the objects and reasons of rule as above. 73. From the facts as noticed in the Application, it is clear that Applicant who claim to be ex-shareholder of SIFL whose rights stand extinguished after approval of the Resolution Plan of Essar Steel and OSPIL and in the Resolution Plan SIFL's claim having fully satisfied, neither SIFL nor any of its pre-CIRP shareholder has any subsisting right to initiate any proceeding. When the Applicant has no direct interest in the subject matter of litigation, can Applicant be permitted to address submission on question of law under Order 1 Rule 8A is the question to be answered. When an Applicant cannot intervene in the proceeding directly since he has no direct or subsisting in....