Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: NCLAT orders in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons Private ... vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction ... on 13 April, 2021Matching Fragments
CIVIL APPEALS ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.71477150 OF 2020 [ELECTROSTEEL STEELS LIMITED, BOKARO, JHARKHAND VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS]
26. The appellant is a Corporate Debtor in respect of which the proceedings under Section 7 were initiated by the SBI. Vide order dated 21.7.2017 of NCLT, the application filed by SBI was admitted and Mr. Dhaivat Anjaria was 1 (2020) 8 SCC 531 appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). In its meeting dated 21.8.2017, CoC approved the appointment of IRP as RP. In response to the invitation for submission of resolution plans, four applicants had submitted their Resolution Plans. CoC had approved the Resolution Plan of Vedanta Limited by 100% voting share. NCLT vide order dated 17.4.2018 approved the Resolution Plan of Vedanta Limited. The appeal being Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 175/2018 filed by one Renaissance Steel India Private Limited challenging the order of NCLT came to be dismissed by NCLAT vide order dated 10.8.2018. Challenging the notices issued by the respondent State Authorities and the order of SBI asking it to pay an amount of Rs.37,41,41,602/ on account of tax penalty due under the Jharkhand VAT Act for the period 201112 and 2012 13, the appellant approached the High Court of Jharkhand. The appellant had also challenged the letter dated 22.11.2019 issued by State Tax Officer, Bokaro to deposit the amount of Rs.75,57,000/. As in the other matters, it is contended by the appellant, that in view of Section 31 of I&B Code, since the claim made by the respondent was not a part of the Resolution Plan, it would get extinguished on the Resolution Plan being approved by NCLT. The said writ petition came to be rejected by the High Court on the ground, that the petitioner had no locus and that the Resolution Plan was not binding on the State Government since it had not participated in the CIRP proceedings. SUBMISSIONS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.8129 OF 2019 [Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Others]
32. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the EARCrespondent No.1 submitted, that by the impugned order, NCLAT has only reserved the right of EARC to invoke the Corporate Guarantee in its favour. He submitted, that on account of the erroneous conduct of the proceedings by RP and CoC, EARC has been put in a precarious condition. He submitted, that on one hand RP has not recognized EARC as a financial creditor thereby, depriving its nomination to CoC and participation in finalization of the proceedings. On the other hand, denying EARC to encash its bank guarantee would leave EARC high and dry. A substantial claim of 3 (2020) 11 SCC 467 4 (2020) 9 SCC 729 5 2021 SCC OnLine SC 204 EARC would be rendered futile, in the event the order passed by NCLT is to be maintained. He therefore submitted, that no interference is warranted in the appeal.
7 (2018) 17 SCC 394 8 (2019) 11 SCC 633
36. He submitted, that the orders passed by NCLAT were challenged before this Court by the Revenue Authorities of the Rajasthan State as well as the Commissioner of Central Excise (GST), Jodhpur and this Court had refused to interfere with the order passed by NCLAT. It is submitted, that in this background, the authorities are totally unjustified in continuing the proceedings, which are undisputedly with respect to the dues prior to admission of the application under Section 7 of I&B Code, only on the ground, that there is no specific stay order passed by NCLT.
116. He submits, that NCLAT itself in the said case had directed EXIM Bank and Axis Bank to be treated as ‘financial creditors’ and had further directed them to be given representation on CoC. He submits, that, however, in the present case, NCLAT has taken a contrary view. He therefore submits, that in the alternative this Court should direct RP/CoC to treat EARC as a ‘financial creditor’ and give it representation on CoC and take a decision in accordance with law.
117. We find, that the said case, on facts, would not be applicable to the case at hand. No doubt, that the appeal filed against the judgment and order of NCLAT dated 14.8.2018 has been dismissed by this Court on 23.1.2019. However, it is a settled law, that dismissal of a Special Leave Petition/Appeal does not amount to affirmation of the view taken in the judgment impugned in the Special Leave Petition/Appeal. It will also be relevant to refer to the order passed by this Court dated 23.1.2019 while dismissing the appeal, which reads thus: