Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.41 seconds)Section 37 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jaypee Kensington Boulevard ... vs Nbcc (India) Ltd on 24 March, 2021
In the Jaypee
Kensington's case Lenders were outside the CIRP. In Para 259.1, as noted
above following was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
Section 30 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Anuj Jain Interim Resolution ... vs Axis Bank Limited on 26 February, 2020
"9. Thus, we are presented with a difficult situation,
wherein, Appellant No.1 - Vistra, a secured creditor, is
being denied the rights under Section 52 as well as
Section 53 of the Code in respect of the pledged shares,
whereas, the intent of the amended Section
30(2) read with Section 31 of the Code is too contrary,
as it recognises and protects the interests of other
creditors who are outside the purview of the CoC. To
our mind, the answer to this tricky problem is twofold.
First is to treat the secured creditor as a financial
creditor of the Corporate Debtor to the extent of the
estimated value of the pledged share on the date of
commencement of the CIRP. This would make it a
member of the CoC and give it voting rights, equivalent
to the estimated value of the pledged shares. However,
this may require re consideration of the dictum and
Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 517 & 518 of 2023
-33-
ratio of Anuj Jain (supra) and Phoenix ARC (supra),
which would entail reference to a larger bench. In the
context of the present case, the said solution may not
be viable as the resolution plan has already been
approved by the CoC without Appellant No. 1 Vistra
being a member of the CoC. Therefore, we would opt
for the second option. The second option is to treat the
Appellant No. 1 - Vistra as a secured creditor in terms
of Section 52 read with Section 53 of the Code. In
other words, we give the option to the successful
resolution applicant - DVI (Deccan Value Investors) to
treat the Appellant No.1 - Vistra as a secured creditor,
who will be entitled to retain the security interest in the
pledged shares, and in terms thereof, would be entitled
to retain the security proceeds on the sale of the said
pledged shares under Section 52 of the Code read with
Rule 21A of the Liquidation Process Regulations. The
second recourse available, would be almost equivalent
in monetary terms for the Appellant No. 1 Vistra, who
is treated it as a secured creditor and is held entitled
to all rights and obligations as applicable to a secured
creditor under Section 52 and 53 of the Code. This to
our mind would be a fair and just solution to the legal
conundrum and issue highlighted before us."
Section 5 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
M/S Vistra Itcl (India) Limited vs Dinkar Venkatasubramanian on 4 May, 2023
33. The Appellant has next relied Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in
"Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd." (supra). In the above case also Amtek Auto
Limited (Corporate Debtor) has pledged its shares for loan facility availed by
two group companies i.e. Brassco Engineers Ltd. and WLD Investments Pvt.
Ltd. In the insolvency proceeding of the Corporate Debtor, claim was filed by
M/s Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd., the Security Trustee in Form 'C', which claim
was rejected. Resolution Plan was approved. Thereafter, an application was
Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 517 & 518 of 2023
-32-
filed claiming right on the basis of pledged shares. I.A. No. 62 of 2020 as well
as Appeal having been dismissed, Appeal was filed before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.