Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S. Tata Steel Bsl Ltd. vs Varsha on 27 August, 2021
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose
ITEM NO.11 Court 11 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 36520/2019
M/S. TATA STEEL BSL LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
VARSHA & ANR. Respondent(s)
(ONLY I.A. NO. 34503/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION)
Date : 27-08-2021 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
[IN CHAMBERS]
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anuapam Lal Das, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shashank Manish, AOR
Mr. Arvind Thapliyal, Adv.
Ms. Smriti Shah, Adv.
Mr. Manik Ahluwalia, Adv.
Ms. Nidhi Sahay, Adv.
Ms. Sarvana Vasanta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Respondent-in-person
Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Tarun Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR
Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv.
Ms. Akanksha Kapoor, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The main Special Leave Petition arises out of approval of Resolution Plan by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code.
This instant application is filed by MASYC Projects Pvt.
Ltd. seeking to intervene in the main Special Leave Petition. The respondents in the Special leave petition as well as the applicant Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Rachna Date: 2021.09.02 for intervention are both operational creditors of the company 16:45:55 IST Reason:
concerned i.e. Tata Steel BSL Limited( formerly known as Bhushan 1 Item No. 11 Steel Ltd.) The petitioner in the Special Leave Petition, Tata Steel BSL Limited has taken over the company in question. The question which is raised in this special leave petition is as to whether the respondents as operational creditors can enforce any claim for their past dues by way of civil suit or not, after approval of the Resolution Plan. The applicant who are represented by Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel are also operational creditor and they have a pending arbitration proceedings against the corporate debtor.
Mr. Maninder Singh’s submission is that in relation to the arbitration proceedings in which his clients are a party, a question of law similar to that which is the subject controversy in the present special leave petition is likely to arise.
In such circumstances, I.A. No.34503/2020 application for intervention is allowed and the intervenor shall be permitted to argue only on the point of law which I have broadly indicated above. Mr. Anuapam Lal Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner wants this Court to pass an order staying the arbitration proceedings. But at this stage, I do not think as a Chamber Judge, hearing the intervention application, I can entertain the plea for passing such an order. The petitioner, if so, advised can pray for such an order before the Regular Bench.
(NEETA SAPRA) (DIPTI KHURANA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
2