Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Reliance Commercial Finance Limited ... vs Darode Jog Builder Private Limited on 9 December, 2022
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No 7398 of 2022
Reliance Commercial Finance Limited
(Formerly known as Reliance Capital Limited) .... Appellant(s)
Versus
Darode Jog Builder Private Limited ....Respondent(s)
ORDER
1 On 4 November 2019, the appellant instituted proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 1, CP(IB) 498/2020, before the National Company Law Tribunal2 Mumbai for the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process3 against the respondent which is the Corporate Debtor. 2 In the proceedings under Section 7 of IBC, the appellant quantified the amount due at Rs 15,79,41,658 as on the date of the filing of the application. The proceedings were adjourned from time to time in order to enable the respondent to resolve the dispute.
3 On 6 July 2022, the respondent made an offer to settle the outstanding dues at Signature Not Verified an amount of Rs 12.75 crores payable within 45 days. The adjudicating Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2022.12.12 17:13:57 IST Reason: authority, while directing the appellant to seek instructions on the offer, clarified 1 “IBC” 2 “NCLT” 3 “CIRP” 2 that if the settlement did not materialize, the Company Petition would be admitted on the next date of listing.
4 On 11 July 2022, the adjudicating authority disposed of the Company Petition. The adjudicating authority noted the submissions of the Corporate Debtor that it was ready and willing to deposit the entire amount of Rs 15,79,41,658 instead of Rs 12.75 crores as offered earlier within 45 days. The counsel for the Financial Creditor furnished details of the bank account to facilitate the payment being deposited. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority directed the Corporate Debtor to deposit the above amount within 45 days in three installments. The Company Petition was disposed of granting liberty to the appellant to apply for restoration if the amount was not paid.
5 The above order has been confirmed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal4, while dismissing the appeal on 19 September 2022. 6 When these proceedings came up before this Court on 18 November 2022, the Court recorded that the respondent had handed over demand drafts in the amount of Rs 15.79 crores to the appellant’s counsel. In addition, this Court directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs 4.25 crores within two weeks to the appellant without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The underlying financials were permitted to be produced by the appellant. The amount has been paid.
7 The narration of facts in the earlier part of the order would indicate that the amount, which was quantified by the appellant on the date of the institution of the proceedings under Section 7 of IBC (4 November 2019), was Rs 15.79 crores. 4 “NCLAT” 3 On 6 July 2022, the respondent had offered to settle the dues at Rs 12.75 crores, an offer which was not accepted by the appellant. Eventually, the NCLT resolved the Company Petition by directing the appellant to accept an amount of Rs 15.79 crores in settlement of its dues.
8 We have found considerable merit in the submissions of the appellant that the Company Petition could not have been disposed of by the adjudicating authority in the above terms. The claim of the appellant of Rs 15.79 crores was quantified in the application under Section 7 of IBC which was filed on 4 November 2019. As on 11 July 2022, when the adjudicating authority passed its final order, the amount of Rs 15.79 crores would stand increased by a further amount of Rs 6.35 crores computing interest at the contractual rate of 15 per cent per annum. In addition, the appellant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 3 per cent per annum in view of the default which had taken place. 9 Having regard to the above circumstances, Mr Nikhil Nayyar, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that, in addition to the amount of Rs 15.79 crores and the payment of Rs 4.25 crores during the course of the present proceedings, the respondent should be required to pay the remaining amount towards the interest liability. 10 In our view, the ends of justice would be met by directing that the respondent shall pay a further amount of Rs Three crores within a period of six weeks to the appellant. In the event that the above amount of Rs Three crores is paid to the appellant within a period of six weeks, the proceedings arising out of the application under Section 7 of IBC shall stand closed. In the event that there is any default in making the payment, the respondent shall lose the benefit of this 4 order and the proceedings under Section 7 of IBC shall stand admitted with the CIRP to follow.
11 Upon the making of the aforesaid payment of Rs Three crores within a period of six weeks, all further proceedings bearing on the liability of the respondent shall stand closed and the documents of title shall be returned. 12 The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
13 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
..…..…....…........……………….…........CJI. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] …..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha] New Delhi;
December 09, 2022
-S-
5
ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).7398/2022
RELIANCE COMMERCIAL FINANCE LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS RELIANCE CAPITAL LIMITED) Appellant(s)
VERSUS
DARODE JOG BUILDER PRIVATE LIMITED Respondent(s)
(IA No.145544/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.145543/2022-EX-PARTE STAY and IA No.145541/2022- PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ) Date : 09-12-2022 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA For Appellant(s) Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Satija, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Shukla, Adv.
Ms. Geetika Sharma. Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Chandar Uday Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Yatin M Jagtap, Adv.
Mr. Kaustubh K. Kandpile, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Maindargi, Adv.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. 2 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)