Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

173. In light of the discussion above, we find no merit in this appeal, and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 988 of 2019

174. The Appellant Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the Adjudicating Authority has arbitrarily dealt with the Appellant's Application in para No. 18 to 23 of the Impugned Order and while dismissing the same without looking into the documents on record has erroneously held that the Appellant has failed in proving that it has an exclusive charge over the Air Separation Plant ("AS Plant") of Respondent No. 2 and 1st paripassu charge(along with State Bank of India) over the Sinter plant of the Respondent No. 2, both located at Saha Chowk, Kharagpur and has accordingly erred in holding that 'IDBI' has a first paripassu charge over the movable fixed assets of the Respondent No. 2 and second paripassu charge over the current assets, hence is on equal footing as that of Appellant in the A. S plant and the Sinter plant. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos.995, 988, 1039, 1124, 1125, 1159, 1242 of 2019 & 468 of 2020 93 of 106

178. Details have been set out in chart to show that the Appellant has exclusive and paripassu charge with the 'SBI' over Air Separation Plant (which was exclusively financed by the assignor of the Appellant and over which the Appellant has first, and exclusive charge and Sinter Plant ,which the assignor State Bank of India financed, and over the said asset the Appellant has first paripassu charge along with the State Bank of India.

179. It is submitted by the plant that the Adjudicating Authority has made a gross error in law by arbitrarily dismissing the Application of the Appellant without considering the correct factual position and not considering the error made by the Resolution Professional while calculating the distribution as per Section 30 and 53 of the Code. Appellant has prayed that the Appellant's charge position be corrected to prevent the monetary loss, which the Appellant may suffer.

185. The Adjudicating Authority considered the objections of the Appellant and gave a finding that 'IDBI' had also granted loan to the Corporate Debtor Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos.995, 988, 1039, 1124, 1125, 1159, 1242 of 2019 & 468 of 2020 97 of 106 and had charge over the Kharagpur unit of the Corporate Debtor. The 'IDBI' vide registered deed of assignment of that duly executed with Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd assigned the secure debts of the Corporate Debtor in favour of the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. The Corporate Debtor approached the 'IDBI' for financial exposure to the extent of the ₹124 crores for capital expenditure on its Kharagpur unit. IDBI Bank accepted the request of the Corporate Debtor and made financial exposure for ₹124crores in Corporate Debtor for capital expenditure on its Kharagpur unit. The Corporate Debtor, committed defaults, in repayment to IDBI Bank Ltd and requested the financial restructuring of its financial liabilities towards IDBI Bank Ltd. The IDBI agreed in principle to the structure the financial liabilities towards IDBI Bank Ltd subject to creation/modification of charge by the Corporate Debtor in favour of IDBI Bank Ltd. The Corporate Debtor vide letter of hypothecation dated June 17, 2009 executed in favour of IDBI Bank Ltd secured financial exposure of ₹124 crores of IDBI Bank Ltd. The Corporate Debtor, vide equitable Mortgage Deed dated November 24, 2010, executed in favour of IDBI Bank Ltd, created security in respect of total financial exposure of ₹ 141 crores (1 24 crore and 17 crore, totalling to ₹141 crores). IDBI Bank Ltd/ARCIL holds 1st charge on paripassu basis on the movable and immovable assets of the Corporate Debtor in terms of Deed of Hypothecation dated June 17, 2009 and equitable mortgage dated November 24, 2010 both duly executed by the Corporate Debtor in favour of IDBI Bank Ltd to secure financial exposure by IDBI Bank Ltd in Corporate Debtor. None of the lenders, including the assignee of the Appellant, neither raised any Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos.995, 988, 1039, 1124, 1125, 1159, 1242 of 2019 & 468 of 2020 98 of 106 objection on registration of such charge nor initiated any legal proceedings under Section 141 of the Companies Act,1956 to rectify the register of charges maintained by the 'ROC'. Hence, all other lenders of the Corporate Debtor, including the assignee of the Appellant and consequently the Appellant by its conduct, accepted the first charge on paripassu basis on these assets of the Corporate Debtor situated at Kharagpur. Thus, the Appellant at this belated stage is stopped from raising any issue about the IDBI Bank/Appellant's charge on the assets of the Corporate Debtor situated at Kharagpur.

189. It is pertinent to mention that both the objectors were members of the Committee of Creditors. It is also understood that the security interests recorded for each creditor have been made available to all the members of the 'CoC' before finalisation of the approval of the Resolution Plan. Therefore, the challenges raised by the above said Financial Creditors claiming exclusive charge over the above said plants are found devoid of any merits. They are estopped from contending that the RP has erred in recording the value of Financial Creditors' security interest after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the required majority, wherein they were parties and participated in the discussions. It is also observed that Mortgage Deed executed by IDBI indicates that the 'IDBI' had the first paripassu charge over the movable fixed assets of the Corporate Applicant, and the 2nd paripassu was set with the working capital lenders over the current assets. The Allahabad bank assigned the debt to Pegasus Asset Reconstruction Private Limited, and UCO Bank had assigned the debt to the Corporate Applicant and M/s JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited. None of the Banks came forward to raise the contention that they have had first paripassu charge over the plant's as the Financial Creditors alleged in the objection and the applications. They Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos.995, 988, 1039, 1124, 1125, 1159, 1242 of 2019 & 468 of 2020 100 of 106 are the consortium members wherein the fact remained that 'IDBI' has got the first paripassu charge, and it is conceded by the lenders.