TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....djudicating Authority has rejected the Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Professional, however, has also made certain observations with regard to the appellant in paragraph no. 25 and 28 of the same. 2. Brief factual matrix as appears from the record is that vide order dated 20.02.2018 passed in CP (IB) No. 14/NCLT/AHM/2018, the Wind World India Ltd. (CD) was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and Mr. Shailen Shah Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). On 08.03.2018, appellant and its associate companies filed their claims to the tune of Rs. 4,822,378,082/- out of this claim amount the claim with regard to Rs. 4,114,335,826/- was admitted. The consortium of Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., Suraksha Reality Ltd. and Lakshdeep Investments and Finance Ltd. (herein after referred as Suraksha Consortium) was approved by the CoC with a majority vote of 69.87% in its 13th meeting held on 16.11.2018. 3. It is further reflected from the record that on 19.11.2018, IA/476 (AHM)/2018 was filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) under Section 30(6) of the Code for approval of the Resolution Plan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... companies exposure in CD and the CD agreed to reimburse/compensate the IL&FS group companies an amount of Rs. 1,227,000,000/- towards cost incurred by the group companies for the period 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 which was ultimately settled vide agreement dated 01.10.2016, to Rs. 8,717,000,000/- and subsequently it was agreed by the IL&FS group companies to adjust the exposure only to the extent of Rs. 6,917,000,000/- (revised project cost). However, the default has been committed by the CD to and upon issuing of public announcement in the CIRP of the CD the IL&FS group companies had filed their claim and their claim was admitted up to the extent of Rs. 4,114,335,826/-. 8. It was also stated in the reply that no money laundering case against the IL&FS group companies in connection with this transaction involving the CD has been initiated. 9. Ld. Adjudicating Authority disposed of IA No. 15/2020 along with many other applications including the Resolution Plan approval application i.e. IA/476 (AHM)2018 and while rejected the Resolution Plan made following observations in paragraph no. 25 and 28 of the impugned judgment: "25. The IDBI Bank is another financial creditor ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant who is the part and parcel of IL&FS group companies. 10. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aggrieved by the aforesaid observations made by Ld. Adjudicating Authority without considering the reply filed by the appellant and without providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and there was absolutely no necessity to make such observations when the plan itself was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. 11. It is further submitted that the observations in paragraph no. 28 appears to have arrived from the allegations made by the Respondent No. 1 in his application IA No. 15/2020 wherein the allegations were labelled that the ED investigation has been initiated against IL&FS finance and its group companies including the IL&FS group companies, which were baseless and were not supported by any evidence and in response the appellants have placed correct facts by submitting their reply and clarified that the appellant and its associate companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of IL&FS Energy Development Company Ltd. (IEDCL) which is a completely different and separate entity from IL&FS financial services ltd. (IFIN) and there is no invest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt case are group companies of IL&FS Finance. against whom money laundering cases have been initiated by the Enforcement Directorate. This clarifies that the IL&FS Group Companies must not be allowed to be a part of the CoC' be expunged from the Impugned Order:" 17. We notice that after conclusion of the submissions on 16.12.2025 we provided opportunity to Ld. Counsel for the parties to file the written submissions and also to file relevant documentary evidence in order to show as to against which of the IL&FS group companies investigation is being done by the ED. However, it is only the Appellant who has filed written submission in pursuance of the aforesaid order. 18. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 while relying on the reply to the appeal filed by him submits that no illegality has been committed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority in making the observations in para no. 25 and 28 of the impugned judgment, which were emerging from the record and it was evident that the appellant companies could not be the members of the CoC as apart from investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) the investigation by Directorate of Enforcement (ED's) was also goi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the present appeal is between the appellant and the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the answering Respondent No. 3 (CoC) of the CD is a proforma party. 22. It is further submitted that the facts in the impugned order precisely in paragraph no. 25 with regard to the challenge of plan by the IDBI Bank and also making submissions by the IDBI Bank pertaining to wrong inclusions of the appellant in the CoC have been inadvertently recorded as the IDBI has not made any such statement and the Respondent No. 3 has been neutral towards this issue and would comply any direction which may be issued by the NCLT or NCLAT. 23. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that along with the application filed by the Resolution Professional for acceptance of the Resolution Plan being IA No. 476 of 2018 under Section 30(6) of the Code various other applications were moved by the parties were also disposed of by Ld. Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 24.08.2022 including IA No. 15 of 2020 which was moved by the Suspended Director/Promoter of the CD namely, Yogesh Mehra (Respondent no. 1). 24. It is pertinent to mention here that since the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst whom and group companies' money laundering cases have been registered by the ED and these companies must not be allowed to be part of the CoC. 30. We notice that Ld. Adjudicating Authority while recording this observation has not discussed any material or evidence which may suggest that appellant and other two related companies known as IL&FS group companies are the group companies of IL&FS finance. The Adjudicating Authority's finding in para 28 has two parts. The first part holds that IL&FS group companies in the instant case are group companies of IL&FS Finance and in the second part Adjudicating Authority records that money laundering cases have been initiated against IL&FS Finance by the Enforcement Directorate and accordingly IL&FS group companies must not be allowed to be a part of the CoC. 31. In this regard, we take note of Annual Report of IEDCL for the FY 2019-20 wherein the organisational structure of the IEDCL has been given as part of annual statements of accounts. The relevant page of notes forming part of the IND AS Financial Statements is extracted below: 32. We can see from the above statement of IEDCL that: a) Holding company of IEDCL is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judgment may be made with regard to the commencement of the investigation of the ED against appellant and its group companies. As we have noted earlier that the financial statement of FY 2019-20 of IEDCL records that the appellant and two other companies (IL&FS companies) are the group companies of IL&FS. It is not understood as to on what basis the Adjudicating Authority has recorded his findings that these are group companies of IL&FS Finance. 37. It is also reflected that though before this appellate tribunal the Respondent No. 1 has filed annual report of IEDCL of the financial year 2019-2020 but this report has not been considered by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority nor has been mentioned in the impugned judgment. In this regard the reply filed by the Respondent No. 2 may also be referred wherein para no. 7 it has been stated that no ED investigation is going on against these IL&FS entities and there was no bar in including them as members of the CoC of the CD. 38. During the hearing we requested the counsel for Respondent No.1 to produce any document to show evidence of any existing money laundering proceedings against the appellant and its sister companies. However, Ld. ....