Bharat Heavey Electricals Limited vs Navneet Kumar Gupta

IN THE MATTER OF: Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Navneet Kumar Gupta, Liquidator of Monnet Power Company Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ajeem, Ms. Ishani Mukherjee, Mr. Pritwiraj, Mr. Umang, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Ms. Ashly Cherian, Gaurav Arora, Mr. Nimish Kumar, Ms. S.Singh, Advocates

ORDER

15.09.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 03.02.2022 passed by

'National Company Law Tribunal', Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, by which order,

Application u/s 7 filed by the IDFC Bank on 23.02.2018. Subsequently, the

order of liquidation was passed on 23.10.2019. Liquidator has passed an order

on 28.05.2020 holding that Appellant was not the 'Secured Creditor' nor he has

lien on the goods. Challenging the said order, an Appeal was filed by Appellant

before the Adjudicating Authority which has been rejected by the impugned

order, relying on the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dismissing an

identical appeal filed by the Appellant in the case of Visa Power Limited and also

relying on the judgement of this Appellate Tribunal in the Company Appeal

(AT)(Ins.) No. 22/2020 'Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Mr. Anil Goel & Ors'. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 316 of 2022 1

2. Shri Sanjiv Sen, Learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant challenging the

order submits that the claim of the Appellant that they are the secured creditor

and they have lien on the goods, have been wrongly rejected by the Adjudicating

Authority which has relied on an earlier order passed by this Tribunal against

which the Appellant has already filed an appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court

where Hon'ble Supreme Court has also passed an Interim Order in Civil Appeal

No. 3399/2020 'Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Mr. Anil Goel & Ors.' on

05.01.2021 which appeal is pending for final disposal.

3. Shri Neeraj Malhotra, Learned Sr. Counsel for Respondent refuting the

submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that no error was

committed by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the claim of the Appellant

as secured creditor and refusing to accept any lien of the Appellant on the

goods. It is submitted that the Appellant had already filed an appeal with regard

to similar matter in this Tribunal and this Tribunal had also dismissed the

appeal by the order passed on 10.08.2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) No.

22/2020. Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Learned Sr. Counsel for the Respondent further

submitted that there is some difference in the present case with regard to Visa

Power Ltd.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 316 of 2022 2

4. The Adjudicating Authority relying on the order of this Tribunal in

Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) No. 22/2020 has dismissed the appeal filed by the

Appellant. Admittedly, the civil appeal has already been filed by the Appellant

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the order of this Tribunal which

was relied by the Adjudicating Authority.

5. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that this appeal also need to be

dismissed in terms of the order dated 10.08.2020 passed in Company Appeal

(AT)(Ins.) No. 22/2020. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

6. In this appeal we had already passed an Interim Order on 30.03.2022 to

the following effect:-

"Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in

an Appeal filed before the NCLAT by the Appellant, this

Appellate Tribunal has decided a similar case against which

a Civil Appeal has been filed by the Appellant wherein an

Interim Order has been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of 'Status-Quo'.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that similar

order of status-quo be passed by this Tribunal as has been

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an identical issue.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 316 of 2022 3

3. Learned Sr. Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Krishnendu

Datta may file Reply-Affidavit within two weeks. Rejoinder,

if any, may be filed within two weeks, thereafter.

List this Appeal on 02nd May, 2022. Meanwhile, Status-Quo

as is existing regarding the plant and machinery shall be

maintained."

7. In fact of the present case, we are of the view that the order of status quo

passed by this Tribunal may continue for a period of two weeks from today to

enable the Appellant to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

ss/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 316 of 2022 4