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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more