National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
International Asset Reconstruction ... vs Viceroy Hotels Limited (In Cirp) on 28 June, 2023
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AT CHENNAI
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.325/2021
IA Nos. 674 & 675 /2021 and 26 &151/2022
(Filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016)
(Arising out of the Impugned Order dated 01.09.2021 in IA No.281of
2019 in CP No. IB/219/7/HDB/2017 passed by the 'Adjudicating
Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-1)
In the matter of:
International Asset Reconstruction
Company Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant
V
Viceroy Hotels Limited & Anr. ... Respondents
Present :
For Appellant : Mr. P.H. Arvindh Pandian, Sr. Advocate
for Mr. Shabbeer Ahmed, Advocate
For Respondents: Mr. Srinath Sridevan, Advocate for R1/Resolution
Professional
M/s.Vashi and Vashi, Advocate for R3
For Intervenors : Ms. Arthi Fernandes, Advocate
ORDER
(Physical Mode) 28/06/2023:
Heard the Learned Counsel for the 'Appellant'.
According to the Learned Counsel for the 'Appellant', the 'Appellant' has filed a 'Memo', before this 'Tribunal', on 26.06.2023 [vide Diary Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 325/2021 Page 1 of 4 No.1168/2023] inter alia, stating that the 'Appellant' as per the withdrawal 'Memo' dated 20.06.2023, is not seeking any relief for expunging the remarks from the 'Impugned Order' dated 01.09.2021 passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' [National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in CP(IB) No/219/7/HDB/2017] and added further the order of the 'Adjudicating Authority'/'Tribunal' Hyderabad Bench dated 14.06.2022 in IA No. 443/2022 by which the 'CIRP process' of the 'Corporate Debtor' restarted by issuing 'Form-G' was not assailed by any party till date and has attained finality.
The plea of the Learned Counsel of the 'Appellant', is that the 'Appellant' seeks 'simpliciter permission', from this 'Tribunal', to withdraw the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 325/2021 and it being the 'Dominus Litis' is entitled to withdraw the 'instant Appeal' and any objection to the withdrawal of the instant Appeal, which assails the order dated 01.09.2021 relating to the 'Resolution Plan' submitted under the first round of 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' when even the second round of 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' was concluded, on 09.06.2023 has no rational basis.
Viewed in the above perspective, the Learned Counsel for the 'Appellant' prays for acceptance of the 'Memo' filed on behalf of the 'Appellant' dated 26.06.2023, seeking permission to 'withdraw' the instant Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.325 of 2021.
That apart, on behalf of the 'Appellant' in Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 325 of 2021, it is brought to the fore of this 'Tribunal' that on 16.12.2022, 'Appellant' in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.338 of 2021 [Mr.A.V. Seshakumar Reddy], filed a 'Memo' dated 24.09.2022 in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.338 of 2021, seeking permission from Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 325/2021 Page 2 of 4 this 'Tribunal', to withdraw the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 338 of 2021 and based on the said 'Memo', this 'Tribunal', was perforced to pass an 'Order' directing the 'withdrawal' of the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 338 of 2021 by dismissing the same, without costs.
On behalf of the 'intervenors' a 'Memo' dated 26.06.2023 (vide Diary No.1169 of 2023) is filed by the Learned Counsel wherein it is among other things mentioned that the 'Intervenors' will be put to irreparable financial loss as the realisation under the 'CFM plan' is much higher and earlier than the plan by the new Resolution Applicant Anirudh Agro Farms (P) Ltd. Further, if a 'Resolution Plan' is rejected, it is only the 'Committee of Creditors' which voted in majority can only be aggrieved and it cannot be said that every such 'CoC' Members ought to prosecute an Appeal as an aggrieved person.
In effect, the objections of the 'intervenors', is that withdrawal of the 'Appeal' will not be in the interest of 'administration of law and justice' and in short, the 'Appeals', are not permitted to be withdrawn and directions sought for by the 'Applicant(s)' are granted by this 'Tribunal'. Moreover, the 'Applicant(s)' being 'Minority Creditors' are further agreed/aggrieved that 'lower value plan' is sought to be pushed through when another higher value plan continues to be approved by the self-same body and the majority of 'Committee of Creditors', cannot now withdraw an Appeal', as that will be 'detrimental' to the interest of the 'Creditors' including the 'Applicants'.
Mr. Srinath Sridevan, Learned Counsel appears for the 'Resolution Professional', submits that the 'Intervenor' [P. Jayaprakash Reddy] has filed a 'Memo' dated 27.06.2023, before the 'Office of the Registry' in the instant Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 325 of 2021, categorically stating in Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 325/2021 Page 3 of 4 'unequivocal term', that he wishes to withdraw the said 'implead' in the main Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.325 of 2021.
It is an axiomatic principle in Law that in a 'legal proceeding' before a 'Court of Law' it is for the 'Petitioner'/'Plaintiff' to be the 'Dominus Litis' in a given case and he or it stand or fall on his/its own Legs. As a logical corollary, an 'Appeal' being filed by a concerned aggrieved person can be withdrawn by it/him 'simpliciter' for reasons best known to him/it.
Viewed in that perspective, this 'Tribunal', comes to a cocksure conclusion that the 'Memo', filed on behalf of the 'Appellant', in the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.325 of 2021, seeking permission from this 'Tribunal', to withdraw the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.325 of 2021, is `allowed', by this 'Tribunal', to prevent an 'Aberration of Justice', and to promote `Substantial Cause of Justice'. Consequently, the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.325 of 2021, is `Dismissed as Withdrawn'. No costs. All pending connected `Interlocutory Applications', are closed.
[Justice M. Venugopal] Member (Judicial) [Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) SE/NG Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 325/2021 Page 4 of 4