Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

These are two cross appeals. Spice Jet Limited (Spice Jet for short), Paradise Credit Private Limited, Kesha Investment Pvt. Limited and Modi Overseas Investments Limited (collectively referred to as Modi Group) have filed Company Appeal Nos. 1 & 2/2011 impugning the order dated 14th July, 2010 passed by the Company Judge in CA No. 1130/2005 in CP No. 385/2003 and the order dated 16th July, 2010 in Co. A. (SB) 2/2000 and CA 623/2000. The Company Appeal No. 28/2010 has been preferred by Malan Pur Steel Limited (Malanpur, for short) impugning the decision dated 15th July, 2005 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CA No. 797/2000 and CA No. 1852/2002 in CP No. 385/2003, sanctioning the scheme under Section 391(2) read with Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (C. Act for short) on the terms set out therein. Objections were raised by Malanpur before the Company Judge against the scheme, in the said Company Appeal. Malanpur in this appeal also impugns the order dated 14th July, 2010 passed in Company Application 1130/2005, as the said order rejects the Review Application.

3. Contentions of the respondent - Spice Jet Ltd. and the Modi Group are that:

(i) Malanpur was correctly treated and classified with the Inter-

Corporate Depositors and not as a secured creditor.

(ii) A decree holder was not a secured creditor and did not form a separate class.

(iii) Malanpur had never claimed or urged that they formed a separate class because shares were pledged to them or they had sold the said shares. The aforesaid contentions are an afterthought and should not be allowed to be raised.

Naturally, once the amounts as per the scheme are paid, the Spice Jet shall be absolved of any liability in respect of the aforesaid ICDs given by the Malanpur to Spice jet. In such an eventuality, it would always be permissible to Spice Jet to contend before the Court, where these proceedings are pending that amount in question stands paid. The consequence flawing there from can always be taken into account by the Court where these proceedings are pending. In this backdrop once the scheme has already been sanctioned, this ground seeking review of the order is not even available to Malanpur.

(b) of the application being GA No. 2293/2001. The prayer was for a direction upon the Company/ Spice Jet to register transfer of 40,48,200 shares which were sold to three purchasers, and 15,11,200 shares, which were sold by the three purchasers, to various individuals.

26. We have already referred to the civil suit CS No. 161A/1997 which was filed by Malanpur against the Company, (Modi Luft Limited) in the Calcutta High Court. As noticed above, in the said suit a decree on admission in the sum of Rs. 5,83,96,465/- was passed on 8th September, 1997. The first Execution Petition 1545/1998 was stayed by the Calcutta High Court on 23rd June, 1998 upon appointment of the provisional liquidator. Subsequently, Malanpur filed the second Execution Petition on 7th July, 2005, which was registered as Execution Petition No. 54/2005. On the same date itself, a single Judge of the Calcutta High Court passed an order attaching the accounts of Spice Jet to the extent of decreed amount. Spice Jet has filed an appeal against the said order, which is still pending. By another order dated 20th July, 2005 passed by the Division Bench Calcutta High Court, the order of the single Judge dated 7th July, 2005 has been stayed and it has been directed that Malanpur was in the category/class of unsecured creditors. The Division Bench had observed that the scheme passed by the Company court was binding on Malanpur and the second execution proceedings cannot be proceeded with. The result is that the said execution proceedings have been stayed. We, therefore, need not examine the orders passed in the second execution proceedings. This is not an aspect which should also be examined by this court. What has to be examined and gone into by this court in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in their order dated 6th July, 2009, is the question relating to forfeiture of 55,60,000 pledged shares. We shall be only examining the said aspect.