AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts of the case for deciding the appeals are; criminal complaint was filed against HDIL and its groups Companies including the Corporate Debtor, 'Sapphire Land Development Pvt. Ltd." in which proceedings the 'Yacht' owner by Corporate Debtor was attached for the economic offences. An application was filed by PMC Bank, administrator before the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for seeking permission to sell the moveable properties on which an order was passed by additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 25.11.2019 which directed as follows: "1. Applicant in the capacity of Administrator and representative of Reserve Bank of India is allowed to sell the following properties in auction by following strict rules and regulations formed for that. i) Falcon-2000 (VT-HDL) ii) Challenger- 300 (VT-PIL) iii) One Yatch viz. Ferreti 881 HT 2. Amount came from the auction shall be credited in the loan account of HDIL and its group companies. 3. Applicant shall submit detailed report of auction and procedure applied for that before the court immediately after the auction. 4. Before selling the property in auction, EOW shall mak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued to handover the assets to RP in view of the admission of CIRP. When this appeal was taken for consideration following interim order was passed on 22.11.2023. "22.11.2023: Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that auction held on 22.03.2021 i.e. prior to initiation of the CIRP has been set aside by the impugned order. The submission that auction proceeding which was held prior to the CIRP could not have been set aside. 2. Let 'Notice' be issued to the Respondents through 'Speed Post'. Let the requisites together with process fee be filed within three days from today. The Appellant is required to provide the e-mail address of the Respondents and in that mode also, the service can be effected. The Appellant is also required to furnish the Mobile No. of the Respondents to the 'Office of the Registry'. 3. Respondents may file Reply within three weeks. 4. List the Appeal on 10.01.2024. In the meantime, no further steps shall be taken in pursuance of the order dated 17.10.2023." 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in both the appeals Shri Alok Dhir, learned counsel for the Appellant appearing in Comp. App. (AT) No. 1480....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecuniary attack against the Corporate Debtor. In para 5 of the Judgment Adjudicating Authority made following observations. : "It appears that JSW, which was Respondent No. 2 in the SLP (C) No. 29327-29328 of 2019 filed by the CoC, filed an Application being I.A. No. 47947/2020 on 20.03.2020 seeking clarification of the order dated 06.03.2020 to the extent that JSW was not obligated to implement the Resolution Plan during pendency of the SLPs filed by the CoC, Kalyani Transco, Sanjay Singal and others against the Judgment dated 17.02.2020 passed by NCLAT. The said I.A. No. 47947/2020 was resisted by the CoC by filing a detailed reply contending inter alia that JSW was attempting to seek a stay on the implementation of the plan under the garb of clarification of the order dated 06.03.2020. The CoC in the said reply made some serious allegations of misuse of process of court against JSW and sought direction against JSW to implement the plan as per its statutory obligations under the IBC." 11. From the fact which we have noticed above, it is clear that auction proceeding was conducted in pursuance of the order passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on an application filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tors claims have resulted in inter se discrimination towards class of Creditors, not permissible under the Code. (iii) The NCLT had rightly directed the EBITDA/profit generated by the Corporate Debtor during CIRP to be distributed amongst the creditors in view of the judgment passed by the NCLAT in the matter of Standard Chartered Bank vs. Satish Kumar Gupta, Company Appeal (AT) (INS) No. 242/2019 decided on 04.07.2019. Even the CoC had filed an affidavit before the NCLAT claiming EBITDA generated during the CIRP, however the NCLAT in the impugned judgment directed the Monitoring Committee along with the Resolution Professional to go through the RFP/RFRP and distribute the EBITDA accordingly. (iv) There was no provision either in the IBC or in RFRP published by the Resolution Professional or in the Resolution Plan submitted by the SRA, which permitted the Monitoring Committee or the Financial Creditors/CoC to enter into any negotiations with the SRA post the approval of the Resolution Plan. The only provision which governed the conduct of CoC meetings under the IBC was Section 24 which included the representations on behalf of the operational creditors also. Admit....