Skip to main content

Shareholder/Investor of Corporate Debtor cannot claim to be aggrieved person when CIRP already started

Cause Title : Nirej Vadakkedathu Paul vs Sunstar Hotels and Estates Private Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 142 of 2022, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Chennai Bench

Date of Judgment/Order : 27.02.2023

Corum : Justice M. Venugopal, Member (Judicial) & Naresh Salecha, Member (Technical)

Citied: 

  1. P. Naveen Chakravarthy vs. Punjab National Bank, (W.P No. 27780 of 2019)
  2. Innoventive Industries Limited Vs. ICICI Bank, ((2018) 1 SCC 407)
  3. Periasamy Palani Gounder Vs. Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan, (2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 86)
  4. Vidharbha Industries Power Limited Vs. Axis Bank Limited, Civil Appeal No. 4633 of 2021
  5. Axis Bank Vs. Lotus Three Developments & Ors., ((2018) SCC OnLine NCLAT 914)
  6. Naveen Chakravarthy Vs. Punjab National Bank, MANU/ TN/ 0376/ 2021
  7. ICP Investments v. Uppal Housing, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 12371
  8. Punit Garg . Vs. Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 255-256
  9. Satish Seth Vs. Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 257-258 of 2018
  10. Mr. Suresh Madihally Rangachar Vs. Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 259-260 of 2018
  11. Anant Kajare Vs. Eknath Aher & Anr., CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 296 of 2017

Background

An application under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was filed by the Financial creditor (Respondent no. 1 herein) against Corporate Debtor - M/s McDowell Holdings Limited – Respondent No. 2 herein which was admitted by the NCLT. Subsequently interim applications were filed by the appellants herein along with others, seeking  intervention in the resolution process which was dismissed by the NCLT. Hence this appeal. The appellants had approached the Tribunal to intervene as shareholders of the Corporate Debtor.

It is the case of the Appellants that being shareholders, if CIRP is allowed to continue their financial interest will be adversely affected and therefore, they are aggrieved by the impugned order. The Appellants in their written submission prayed for liberty to pay all the dues of the corporate debtor.

One of the questions before the appellate tribunal was whether, the shareholder of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ has any locus in Section 7 application filed by the ‘Financial Creditor

Judgment

Looking into the various definitions under the I & B Code, the NCLAT held that :-
  • The definition of “person” has been given in Section 3(23) of the I & B Code, 2016 which includes an “individual”. This does not specifically mention “shareholder”. However, “individual” is wider term and can include “shareholder”.
  • As clarified in ICP Investments (supra), the Appellants even as “shareholders” cannot be aggrieved merely by the admission of the Corporate Debtor into CIRP. Such objection may render the object of I & B Code, 2016 illusory since any shareholder of any Corporate Debtor against which Insolvency proceedings have been initiated can then seek to maintain a derivative action and sabotage a valid CIRP initiated by the Adjudicating Authority.
  • there is no specific law which allows any shareholder of the Corporate Debtor to challenge the admission of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, once the debt due and default is established by the Adjudicating Authority, in an application under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016.
  • there is no law which allows a third-party to settle the claims of the Financial Creditor on behalf of the Corporate Debtor, more so without any consent of the Corporate Debtor and in the teeth of opposition by the Financial Creditor. 
  • In Anant Kajare (Supra), it was held that an investor/shareholder in a Corporate Debtor cannot claim to be an aggrieved person for preferring an appeal against an order of the NCLT when the application under Section 9 of the ‘I&B Code’ was admitted. In fact, the Appellant being an investor is entitled to file its claim before the Insolvency Resolution Professional.  This judgment is applicable in this matter as well.




Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more