Skip to main content

NCLT: Act/Code will prevail over Rules and Regulation

In Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. vs Resolution Professional of Unimark Remedies Ltd., the application was filed by the applicant before the NCLT, Mumbai in the ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Unimark Remedies Ltd..

The applicant's objection was against the decision of the COC in refusing to open the envelop of the Resolution Plan sent by the Applicant and to return the same to the Applicant without considering the resolution plan on its merits.

The Respondent defended their decision stating that pursuant to section 25(2)(h) of the code, the RP had issued advertisement on 08.06.2018 inviting EOI from prospective resolution Applicants. The last date for submission of EOI was extended thrice by announcement made on the website of the Corporate Debtor that is on 28.06.2018, 19.07.2018 and 17.08.2018. It is further submitted that the request for resolution plans (RFRP) inviting resolution plans from Resolution Applicants was published on the website of the Corporate Debtor on 16.07.2018 with the cut-off date for submission of the Resolution Plan as 14.08.2018. Subsequently, the cut-off date was extended to 14.09.2018, and thereafter to 01.10.2018 and further extended to 31.10.2018. It is submitted that four EOI were received from  Resolution Applicants and two Resolution Plans were received within the cut- off date of 31.10.2018. The Applicant herein has not submitted the Resolution Plan on or before 31.10.2018, however the Applicant has submitted the Resolution Plan on 12.12.2018 which is beyond the cut-off date. It is further submitted that the 270 days of CIRP will expire on 29.12.2018.

The Tribunal accepting the argument of the Applicant held that the Resolution Applicant had approached the RP with a proposal at the 12th hour but certainly before accepting or finalization of any Resolution Plan and keeping in view the very object of the Code, when there is a clash/ conflict between the Regulations and the Code, the object of the Code is paramount and not the Regulations which are formed only for the just implementation of the Code. Purely on the basis of technicalities, the rejection of Resolution Plan even without looking into its merits, is certainly an act which shall go against the very spirit of the Code and may even result in a huge loss to the Company. Any Regulation which does not anticipate such a situation and if the same comes in the way of proper justification and implementation of the principles of the Code, the same need not be considered nor can be treated as an impediment in the implementation of the Code.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more