NCLAT rejects Kotak Bank’s plea to set aside insolvency proceedings against MSEL, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has dismissed a petition filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank along with a director of debt-ridden McNally Sayaji Engineering Ltd (MSEL) to set aside insolvency proceedings against the manufacturer of mineral processing equipment.

A two-member NCLAT bench upheld the orders of the Kolkata bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had on February 11, 2021, admitted a plea by ICICI Bank and directed to initiate insolvency proceedings against MSEL.

The NCLT order was challenged by Kotak Mahindra Bank and a director of the suspended board of MSEL before the appellate insolvency tribunal NCLAT.

Kotak Mahindra Bank had contended that besides it, four other banks — ICICI Bank, DBS, IDBI and SBI — had advanced loans to MSEL and NCLT had failed to appreciate that more than 50 per cent members of the lenders’ consortium had opposed initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), as they were considering restructuring of loan outside the IBC.

Restructuring of loans is more beneficial to the creditors as they will not have to take a haircut, Kotak Mahindra Bank had submitted.

In the eventuality of a resolution plan being implemented or liquidation process being initiated, financial creditors, including Kotak Mahindra Bank, will have to take a haircut, it added.

Moreover, the appellant contended that the case was not maintainable as it was filed after the permissible period of three years after the default.

However, ICICI Bank opposed both the petitions.

It said the account of MSEL was classified as NPA on March 31, 2019 and loan recall notice was issued on January 3, 2020 — thus the application was filed within three years from the date of acknowledgement.

ICICI Bank further said Kotak Mahindra Bank’s appeal was not maintainable and filed at the behest of MSEL.

Moreover, Kotak Mahindra Bank has not raised any challenge to the existence of debt, default and completeness of the application filed by ICICI Bank. The CIRP is not adversarial to the interest of the corporate debtor or its creditors, it said.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is a beneficial legislation for equal treatment to the creditors and to revive MSEL, submitted ICICI Bank.

Rejecting the submissions of the appellant, the NCLAT said the Supreme Court has already held that the date on which a bank declares an account of corporate debtor as NPA is the date of default. In the present case, the MSEL acocount was classified as NPA on March 31, 2019.

NCLAT said Kotak Mahindra Bank has no valid ground to challenge the NCLT order and it was “convinced with the argument of Counsel for the Respondent No 1 (ICICI Bank) and hold that the Appellant has no locus standi” to file this appeal.

The appellant has “failed to point out any legal or factual flaw in the impugned order”, it added.

“With the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the impugned order. Thus, the Appeals are dismissed,” said NCLAT.

On Kotak Mahindra Bank’s plea to consider restructuring of debt outside the purview of IBC, the appellate tribunal said NCLT was aware of the proposal but the lenders’ consortium has not filed any application for deferment of the proceedings before it.

“There is no duty cast on the NCLT that no sooner NCLT gets information that outside the purview of IBC any restructuring proposal is under consideration before the consortium of lenders then…(it) should defer the proceedings for initiation of CIRP,” it said.

In the present case, MSEL has committed default and the application is complete, Therefore, NCLT has no option except to admit the plea to initiate the insolvency process, it said.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Bank of Maharashtra raises issue of breach of confidentiality in Videocon insolvency process, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Bank of Maharashtra, a dissatisfied creditor of Videocon Group, has on Thursday raised the issue of the breach of confidentiality in the corporate insolvency resolution process of the debt-ridden group before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). During the proceedings, counsel appearing for the Bank of Maharashtra wondered as to how the bid amount of the successful resolution applicant Twin Star Technologies was so close to the liquidation value.

“Here the kind of bid that has come is so close to the liquidation value clearly suggests that the confidentiality has not been maintained. More than 95 per cent proceed is being given to the secured creditors (as per the plan) because of the leak of this (liquidation) value to the bidders,” submitted senior advocate Vikas Singh appearing for Bank of Maharashtra.

Singh also said that the resolution plan provides for payment to the dissenting financial creditors by way of non-convertible debentures (NCDs) and equities which is contrary to the rules set out in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Twin Star’s resolution plan of Rs 2,962.02 crore meant a haircut of over 95 per cent on admitted claims of Rs 64,838.63 core.

Even the Mumbai-bench of the NCLT, while approving Anil Agarwal’s Twin Star Technologies’ Rs 2,962.02 crore-bid had observed creditors of debt-ridden Videocon Industries Ltd will be taking nearly 96 per cent haircut on their loans and the bidder is “paying almost nothing”.

The NCLAT will continue hearing the matter on Friday also.

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing the Committee of Creditors submitted that due to paucity of time, a rejoinder to the reply filed by the Twin Star could not be filed. It was assured to be filed by Friday in physical form.

“In the meanwhile, the parties, who have not filed ‘written submissions’ yet, are directed to file the same positively by tomorrow in physical form,” said a two-member bench comprising Justice Jarat Kumar Jain and Ashok Kumar Mishra.

Earlier on June 9, the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has approved a Rs 2,962 crore takeover bid by Twin Star Technologies for the 13 companies of the debt-ridden group.

However, the NCLT order was stayed by the appellate tribunal on July 19 over the petitions filed by two dissatisfied creditors of the Videocon Group – Bank of Maharashtra and IFCI Ltd and had directed to maintain “status quo ante”.

Later, lenders to Videocon Industries had also approached the insolvency appellate tribunal seeking fresh bids for the 13 companies of the debt-ridden group. PTI KRH MKJ



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Key solutions to avoid delay in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Delay in resolving the bad debt of companies have led to disruption of assets for all parties, experts say. According to data, of the ongoing cases, 75% have already exceeded 270 days and took more than 400 days on average.

The Supreme Court also expressed its concerns in its ruling recently, and ordered that the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) should not exceed more than 330 days.

Also read: Delay in resolutions raise questions on IBC regime

There is a need to remember the very essence of the Insolvency and Bank Code – timely resolution. To avoid delay and make CIRP faster, Ashok Paranjpe, managing partner at legal firm MDP & Partners, gives three solutions :

1. Preventing delay in admission of cases

One of the main reasons for delay in CIRP is at the root of it, admission of cases, he says. When it takes time to admit cases, the company remains under the control of the defaulting owner enabling value shifting, data transfers and funds diversion.

The adjudicating authority must make sure that the case is admitted within the stipulated time period of 14 days from the filing of the application. The abuse of the provision under Section 12 of IBC has led to delay in adjudicating the pending matters under National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Additionally, any successful bidder should not be permitted to suggest changes to any scheme approved by the committee of creditors and the adjudicating authority.

2. Professional code of conduct for the committee of creditors

According to Paranjpe, there is an urgent need to have a professional code of conduct for the committee of creditors, which will highlight specific duties and powers to take decisions on resolution plans, selection of the interim resolution professional and resolution professional.

3. Experienced and trained members of NCLT and NCLAT

It has been observed that very often orders passed by NCLT are appealed against to the NCLAT and ultimately the Supreme Court due to the lack of quality decisions from the judicial members of the adjudicating authorities. Recently, the Centre cleared appointments of 18 members to various tribunals in India, owing to the growing criticism over delays in filling up vacancies in NCLT.

Click here to read our coverage on IBC



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Insolvency and bankruptcy matters must be decided in 330 days, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday said that 330 days deadline for resolution plan has to be strictly adhered to and NCLT and NCLAT must decide insolvency and bankruptcy matters keeping in mind the sanctity of the deadline provided by legislature.

A SC bench headed, by Justice D Y Chandrachud, said that earlier bankruptcy code failed mainly because of long delays in litigation in judicial forums and promised that the present IBC will not be allowed to meet the same fate

“Once the Committee of Creditors submits a resolution plan for a stressed assets under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, it cannot be modified or withdrawn by resolution applicant,” the SC said.

Meanwhile, addressing a question on the high haircuts taken by banks in resolution to some bankruptcy cases, RBI governor Shaktikanta Das last week had said that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC) process needs some improvement which will include some legislative changes as well.

“Yes, I agree that there is scope for the improvement in the functioning of the IBC and framework. There is perhaps need to certain legislative amendments also,” he said.

The RBI has certain suggestions which it has flagged to the government, he said, citing an example of the time taken before a case is admitted in a National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and comes up for resolution through court-directed measures and suggested that the same can be dealt with through legal amendments.

He said the overall recoveries from the IBC process used to be at 45 per cent at the aggregate level four years ago and have come down to 40 per cent in the pandemic year, and also acknowledged that in some cases, lenders have had to take deep haircuts of up to 90 per cent.

“There is scope for some improvement and the time taken in the entire process I entirely agree needs to be reduced by simplifying certain procedures and wherever necessary by carrying out legislative change,” Das said.

(With inputs from agencies)



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

DHFL: SC asks NCLAT to wrap up 63 Moons’ appeal against Piramal Group in 2 months

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


 

The Supreme Court has directed the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to complete the hearing of the appeal filed by 63 Moons Technologies against the Piramal Group’s resolution plan for mortgage financier Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL), within two months.

Enabling the implementation of the resolution process of DHFL to continue, the Supreme Court also refused to grant a stay on it.

“63 Moons appeal in NCLAT questioned the legality of Piramal’s Resolution Plan for DHFL, where Piramal may be able to potentially pocket ₹45,000 crore that may be recovered from the Wadhawans and their associates,” 63 Moons said in a statement, adding that the NCLAT, while issuing the notice, did not stay the implementation of the resolution plan.

63 Moons holds non-convertible debentures worth over ₹200 crore issued by DHFL.

It had moved the Supreme Court last month against the NCLAT’s order that refused to stay the resolution plan for DHFL. The next hearing of 63 Moon’s petition in the NCLAT is on September 15.

NCLAT to hear FD holders’ plea in DHFL resolution case on Sept 16

It has issued notices to the Committee of Creditors, the administrator of DHFL and Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd (PCHFL).

The financial services company had approached the NCLAT soon after the NCLT approved (June 7) the Piramal Group’s ₹37,250-crore resolution plan for mortgage financier DHFL, subject to certain conditions.

Steep haircut

The company had termed the resolution plan as disappointing for NCD holders as they have to take a steep haircut.

“The Supreme Court order today is a win-win for both parties. It ensures that the implementation of the resolution plan of DHFL will continue even while the NCLAT will hear the petition of 63 Moons in a time-bound manner and gives clarity to NCD holders,” said an expert.

However, whether 63 Moons will appeal the order of the NCLAT if it is not in its favour remains to be seen.

“The order passed by the Supreme Court has come as a set back to the creditors holding NCDs in DHFL. Though the apex court has directed the NCLAT to expeditiously decide the issue of undue enrichment raised by 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. within two months, the refusal to stay the implementation of the Resolution Plan may cause discontent in the NCD holders, as at present, they stand to bear the maximum loss as opposed to any other creditor of DHFL,” said Ruby Singh Ahuja, Senior Partner, Karanjawala & Co.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Financial creditors’ insolvency plea valid even after three years, rules SC, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The Supreme Court has ruled that plea by a financial creditor for initiation of insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor before the adjudicating authority will not get time barred on the ground that it had been filed beyond a period of three years from the date of declaration of the loan account as NPA.

A two-judge bench set aside an order of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) by which it had said that application under section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) of Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) for initiation of insolvency process was time barred.

The bench said, “To sum up, in our considered opinion an application under Section 7 of the IBC would not be barred by limitation, on the ground that it had been filed beyond a period of three years from the date of declaration of the loan account of the Corporate Debtor as NPA, if there were an acknowledgement of the debt by the Corporate Debtor before expiry of the period of limitation of three years, in which case the period of limitation would get extended by a further period of three years”.

It said that the impugned judgement and order of NCLAT is unsustainable in law and facts and allowed the appeal of Dena Bank.

The case

Dena Bank has moved the top court in appeal against December 18, 2019 order of NCLAT setting aside an order of March 21, 2019 passed by NCLT, Bengaluru admitting the application of the bank for initiation of insolvency proceedings against company Kaveri Telecom Infrastructure Limited and its director C Shivakumar Reddy.

By a letter dated December 23, 2011 the Bank had sanctioned term loan and Letter of Credit Cum Buyers’ Credit in favour of the company, with an upper limit of Rs 45 Crores.

The said term loan was to be repaid in 24 quarterly instalments of Rs 187.50 lakhs, which were to commence two years after the date of disbursement, and the entire term loan was to be repaid in eight years, inclusive of the implementation period of one year and the moratorium period.

On September 20, 2013 the corporate debtor defaulted in repayment of its dues to the bank and the loan account of the company was therefore declared Non Performing Asset (NPA) on December 31, 2013

The rationale

The bench said that there is no bar in law to the amendment of pleadings in an application under Section 7 of the IBC, or to the filing of additional documents, apart from those initially filed along with application under the provision of the IBC in Form-1.

“In the absence of any express provision which either prohibits or sets a time limit for filing of additional documents, it cannot be said that the adjudicating authority committed any illegality or error in permitting the appellant bank to file additional documents,” it said.

The top court, however, said that depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, when there is inordinate delay, the adjudicating authority might, at its discretion, decline the request of an applicant to file additional pleadings and/or documents, and proceed to pass a final order.

“In our considered view, the decision of the adjudicating authority to entertain and/or to allow the request of the appellant bank for the filing of additional documents with supporting pleadings, and to consider such documents and pleadings did not call for interference in appeal,” it said.

Fresh cause of action

The top court said that a judgment and/or decree for money in favour of the financial creditor, passed by the DRT, or any other Tribunal or Court, or the issuance of a Certificate of Recovery in favour of the financial creditor, would give rise to a fresh cause of action, to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, if the dues remain unpaid.

It said that in the instant case the balance sheets and financial statements of the Corporate Debtor for 2016-2017, constitute acknowledgement of liability which extended the limitation by three years, apart from the fact that a Certificate of Recovery was issued in favour of the appellant bank in May 2017.

It said that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru had rightly admitted the application of the bank by its order dated March 21, 2019.

Limitation Act

It said that there is no specific period of limitation prescribed in the Limitation Act, 1963, for an application under the IBC, before the NCLT but an application for which no period of limitation is provided anywhere else in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, is governed by Article 137 of the schedule of the said Act.

“There can be no dispute with the proposition that the period of limitation for making an application under Section 7 or 9 of the IBC is three years from the date of accrual of the right to sue, that is, the date of default,” it said.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Financial creditors’ insolvency plea valid even after three years, rules SC, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The Supreme Court has ruled that plea by a financial creditor for initiation of insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor before the adjudicating authority will not get time barred on the ground that it had been filed beyond a period of three years from the date of declaration of the loan account as NPA.

A two-judge bench set aside an order of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) by which it had said that application under section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) of Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) for initiation of insolvency process was time barred.

The bench said, “To sum up, in our considered opinion an application under Section 7 of the IBC would not be barred by limitation, on the ground that it had been filed beyond a period of three years from the date of declaration of the loan account of the Corporate Debtor as NPA, if there were an acknowledgement of the debt by the Corporate Debtor before expiry of the period of limitation of three years, in which case the period of limitation would get extended by a further period of three years”.

It said that the impugned judgement and order of NCLAT is unsustainable in law and facts and allowed the appeal of Dena Bank.

The case

Dena Bank has moved the top court in appeal against December 18, 2019 order of NCLAT setting aside an order of March 21, 2019 passed by NCLT, Bengaluru admitting the application of the bank for initiation of insolvency proceedings against company Kaveri Telecom Infrastructure Limited and its director C Shivakumar Reddy.

By a letter dated December 23, 2011 the Bank had sanctioned term loan and Letter of Credit Cum Buyers’ Credit in favour of the company, with an upper limit of Rs 45 Crores.

The said term loan was to be repaid in 24 quarterly instalments of Rs 187.50 lakhs, which were to commence two years after the date of disbursement, and the entire term loan was to be repaid in eight years, inclusive of the implementation period of one year and the moratorium period.

On September 20, 2013 the corporate debtor defaulted in repayment of its dues to the bank and the loan account of the company was therefore declared Non Performing Asset (NPA) on December 31, 2013

The rationale

The bench said that there is no bar in law to the amendment of pleadings in an application under Section 7 of the IBC, or to the filing of additional documents, apart from those initially filed along with application under the provision of the IBC in Form-1.

“In the absence of any express provision which either prohibits or sets a time limit for filing of additional documents, it cannot be said that the adjudicating authority committed any illegality or error in permitting the appellant bank to file additional documents,” it said.

The top court, however, said that depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, when there is inordinate delay, the adjudicating authority might, at its discretion, decline the request of an applicant to file additional pleadings and/or documents, and proceed to pass a final order.

“In our considered view, the decision of the adjudicating authority to entertain and/or to allow the request of the appellant bank for the filing of additional documents with supporting pleadings, and to consider such documents and pleadings did not call for interference in appeal,” it said.

Fresh cause of action

The top court said that a judgment and/or decree for money in favour of the financial creditor, passed by the DRT, or any other Tribunal or Court, or the issuance of a Certificate of Recovery in favour of the financial creditor, would give rise to a fresh cause of action, to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, if the dues remain unpaid.

It said that in the instant case the balance sheets and financial statements of the Corporate Debtor for 2016-2017, constitute acknowledgement of liability which extended the limitation by three years, apart from the fact that a Certificate of Recovery was issued in favour of the appellant bank in May 2017.

It said that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru had rightly admitted the application of the bank by its order dated March 21, 2019.

Limitation Act

It said that there is no specific period of limitation prescribed in the Limitation Act, 1963, for an application under the IBC, before the NCLT but an application for which no period of limitation is provided anywhere else in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, is governed by Article 137 of the schedule of the said Act.

“There can be no dispute with the proposition that the period of limitation for making an application under Section 7 or 9 of the IBC is three years from the date of accrual of the right to sue, that is, the date of default,” it said.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Venugopal Dhoot moves NCLAT to set aside NCLT order on Videocon, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Venugopal Dhoot, has moved the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against the June 8, 2021 order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai approving the bid of Vedanta Group company Twinstar Technologies Limited to acquire the bankrupt Videocon Industries Limited for ₹2,962 crores.

Dhoot has petitioned NCLAT to set aside the ‘Resolution Plan’ approved by the NCLT and allow seeking of fresh resolution plans for all assets of the group, including all foreign oil and gas assets.

In his petition, he listed three respondents filed at the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Saturday—Videocon Group resolution professional Abhijit Guhathakurta, the committee of creditors (CoC), and Twin Star Technologies

The petition also requested NCLAT to direct the Committee of Creditors to consider the ‘Resolution Plan’ submitted by him under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) that entails a “zero haircut” (involving no loss to the banks/ creditors).

Dhoot stated in his petition that the resolution professional had violated Sections 30(2) and 61(3)(ii) of the IBC. He accused the resolution professional of withholding information in the tender form and eroding the value of the company by closing it down.

Commercial wisdom exercised by lenders is “arbitrary and irrational and does not reflect any applicability of mind by rejecting a proposal which was 10 times higher and submitted at an early stage of the process”, he said.

Dhoot further added, “The liquidation value of these oil assets is not less than ₹15,000 crore. As such RP (resolution professional)/ COC (committee of creditors) has no authority to sell oil assets and consumer durables separately. If the RP had sold oil and consumer durables together, he would have got minimum of ₹25,000 crores against a loan of ₹49,000 crores (₹29,000 crores of consumer durables business and ₹20,000 crores of oil assets)”

“Thus recovery would have been around 50% and not 5% as seen today,” he added.

There are 35 financial creditors of Videocon, of which 19 major creditors include SBI, Union Bank, IDBI, Central Bank, BOB, and ICICI Bank who approved the resolution at a December vote. This implied a 95.85% haircut. But three minority shareholders, Bank of Maharashtra, SIDBI, and IFCI rejected the resolution on the ground of low resolution and filed an appeal in NCLAT.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Videocon’s Venugopal Dhoot moves NCLAT; says Twin Star Technologies’ offer too low

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Videocon group’s former promoter Venugopal Dhoot has moved the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against the decision of the lenders to accept the debt resolution proposal from a Vedanta group entity. Dhoot has claimed that the offer made by Twin Star Technologies was too low.

Banks will take a ₹42,000-crore haircut after the Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approved a bid by Anil Agarwal-backed Twin Star Technologies to acquire Videocon Industries for ₹2,962 crore. Claims worth ₹46,000 crore had been admitted under the insolvency process that began in December 2017.

NCLT expresses surprise

The NCLT, while approving the debt resolution plan, had expressed surprise that the bid placed by the Vedanta Group for acquiring 13 companies under the Videocon Group was almost the same value arrived at by the registered valuers for liquidation.

According to the valuation reports, the fair value of the Videocon group was ₹4,069.95 crore while the liquidation value was ₹2,568.13 crore. Twin Star Technologies has offered ₹2,962.02 crore to acquire Videocon

Dhoot had earlier promised to repay about ₹30,000 crore for taking back control of the conglomerate under Section 12 A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which allows the withdrawal of the debt resolution proceedings under NCLT if the majority of the lenders agree to it.

But the offer by the Dhoot family entailed repayments until 2035, which was not acceptable to many banks on Videocon’s Committee of Creditors (CoC).

Promoters’ attempts

Dhoot’s fresh attempt to block the sale of Videocon assets comes at a time when several other promoters are also trying to do the same. For example, Kapil Wadhawan has also approached the Supreme Court claiming rights to bid for DHFL.

C Sivasankaran has also offered to take back control of Siva Industries by paying less than 7 per cent of the total outstanding debt.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

NCLAT declines to stay Piramal Capital’s approved resolution plan for DHFL, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


“The matter is now settled. Nothing can upset it as the authorities demonstrated exemplary action in resolving this case,” said a senior banker, whose institution lent to DHFL.

New Delhi, July 23 () The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Friday declined to stay the resolution plan of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL) and its subsequent takeover by the successful bidder Piramal Capital & Housing Finance over the plea filed by 63 Moons Technologies. A two-member bench comprising its Officiating Chairperson Justice A I S Cheema and Member Alok Srivastava rejected 63 Moons Technologies’ plea to pass an interim order staying the resolution plan approved by the Mumbai bench of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Earlier on June 7, the NCLT had approved the resolution plan of Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd for the debt-ridden DHFL and 63 Moons, which is a debenture holder of DHFL, filed a petition challenging it before NCLAT.

It had requested to stay the operations of the NCLT order, till the two appeals filed by it before the appellate tribunal is decided.

However, the NCLAT said: “We do not find that these are Appeals where interim order should be passed for grounds being raised by the Appellant.”

“If the averments made by Appellant (63 Moons) are juxtaposed with averments made by Respondents, we do not find it a fit case to pass interim orders as sought. We do not think that any interim order as sought with regard to Resolution Plan approved needs to be passed,” said the NCLAT.

63 Moons Technologies holds non-convertible debentures (NCDs) worth over Rs 200 crore issued by DHFL.

According to it, the resolution plan approved by NCLT is against the interests of the company’s NCD holders.

“The Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the execution of the Resolution Plan should be subject to the outcome of these Appeals. On July 6, 2021 itself, we have observed that it is a matter of law and we need not pass any specific orders. Both the Applications in both the Appeals stand disposed of accordingly,” the NCLAT said.

Earlier, on July 6, the NCLAT had issued notices to the lenders of DHFL and its successful bidder Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. KRH MKJ



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

1 2