Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) On 01.06.2019, Consumer Case No.1178 of 2019 titled "Multix Owners and Users Welfare Society (Through its Secretary) vs. Eicher Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1596 of 2023 Polaris Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." was filed before the NCDRC, New Delhi by 274 persons alleging deficiency of goods, restrictive trade practices etc.

(iii) On 14.01.2020, EPPL entered into Service Provider Agreement with TVS Automobile Solution Pvt. Ltd. (TVS) for 5 years for providing repair, warranty & maintenance services and to provide spare parts during the remaining useful life of the vehicles sold with the warranty by the Corporate Person.

2. In this Appeal notices were issued on 08.12.2023, in response to which reply has been filed by Respondent No.1 to which rejoinder has also been filed by the Appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant in support of the Appeal contends that there was no concealment of Service Provider Agreement and the Service Provider Agreement was disclosed in multiple places in the Company Petition. It is further submitted that Liquidator has communicated about the Service Provider Agreement by letter dated 14.09.2021 to the customers who have filed the claim. It is submitted that, however, due to inadvertent mistake as annexure to the Company Petition in place of Service Provider Agreement another document came to be annexed which was an inadvertent error. Subsequently, by Additional Affidavit dated 20.07.2022, the Service Provider Agreement was brought on record before the Adjudicating Authority. In the Company Petition dispute before the NCDRC was also disclosed and in NCDRC also Service Provider Agreement has already been disclosed and filed. It is submitted that the Respondent No.1 who had filed the Intervention Application has no locus to file the Application. In the voluntary liquidation proceeding, in pursuance of the publication by the Liquidator, 134 customers have filed Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1596 of 2023 claim, the Respondent No.1 never filed its claim in the voluntary liquidation process. Against the rejection of application of 134 Customers matter was not proceeded any further by the claimants. It was open for the claimants whose claim was rejected to file appeal under Section 42 of the I&B Code. The Respondent Society who was not claimant has no locus to file Intervention Application in the Company Petition. Liquidation process started in the year 2020 and the Intervention Application has been filed only on 17.07.2023 after the Company Petition was heard and reserved for orders on 01.05.2023. The Respondent Society was well aware of the entire proceeding. The Respondent No.1 whose no claim is pending before the Liquidator is not creditor in terms of the Code. Respondent No.1 not being creditor cannot be impleaded in the Company Petition. The Adjudicating Authority has made serious adverse observation against the Appellant that it has concealed the Service Provider Agreement in the Company Petition and further it has not approached the Adjudicating Authority with clean hands which observation shall be prejudicial to the Appellant when the Company Petition comes for hearing. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority committed error in making the observation that there is concealment of Service Provider Agreement by the Appellant which observation is incorrect and against the record. The Adjudicating Authority failed to consider that by an Additional Affidavit, Service Provider Agreement was brought before the Adjudicating Authority much before filing of Intervention Application by Respondent No.1. It is further submitted that interest of customers including that of Respondent No.1 are Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1596 of 2023 taken care of by the stakeholders of the Corporate Person who has made provision of Rs.5 Crores to meet the future claims, if any crystalized pursuant to final judgment in the Consumer Case. It was further provided that in event the amount higher than the provisional amount is awarded, both the stakeholders undertake to make good any shortfall by sharing the additional liability equally, terms of which are recorded in the Termination Agreement.

4. The submission made by the Appellant has been refuted by learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has only allowed opportunity to the Respondent No.1 to intervene in the mater and allowed impleadment of the Intervenor holding the Intervenor as necessary party to the proceeding. It is submitted that initiation of Voluntary Liquidation is bad in law, non-est in the eyes of law, illegal and void ab initio. Corporate Person has committed default and committed breach of their own Termination Agreement. It is submitted that Service Provider Agreement dated 14.01.2020 executed a month prior to Joint Venture Termination Agreement was not filed along with the Company Petition which was malafidely done. The Corporate Person never shared any information of set-up of TVS Centers since inception and Service Provider Agreement was an afterthought. The initiation of Voluntary Liquidation Proceeding was counter to litigation pending in the NCDRC. The impugned order does not cause any prejudice to the Appellant since the Appellant is at liberty to make final arguments in respect of liquidation before the Adjudicating Authority and at the time of final Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1596 of 2023 hearing the Court shall not be bound by the reasoning given in the order allowing the Intervention Application. It is further submitted that in event any finding of the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order is interfered with, the same shall adversely impact the case of the Respondent. Litigation pending as well as the Service Provider Agreement shall stand terminated after Adjudicating Authority passes a dissolution order under Section 59(8) of the I&B Code.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1596 of 2023 "17. It is submitted that the Service Provider Agreement was filed before the Hon'ble NCDRC on 22.08.2022.

The same is evident from the Index of Documents filed by the Corporate Person herein before the Hon'ble NCDRC, which has been annexed by the Applicant alongwith the present Application on Page 74."

11. The Service Provider Agreement was thus before the NCDRC which was filed by the Corporate Person himself. The mention of Service Provider Agreement in the Company Petition at various places indicate that there was no intention of concealment of Service Provider Agreement or its date before the Adjudicating Authority. In Para 13.1 of the Company Petition following pleadings were made: