Dinesh Kumar Bhasin vs Batliboi Impex Ltd. & Anr

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Bhasin ...Appellant

Vs.

Batliboi Impex Limited & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant:- Ms. Charu Sanswan, Mr. Himanshu Dubey and Mr. Namit Suri, Advocates. Mr. Jansid and Mr. Ritesh Kumar Tiwari, Company Secretary.

For Respondents:- Mr. Akshay Ringe, Advocate.

ORDER

29.06.2018- The Respondent- 'Batliboi Impex Limited'- ('Operational

Creditor') filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "I&B Code") for

initiation of 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against 'Tiger Steel

Engineering (India) Private Limited'- ('Corporate Debtor'). The

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai

Bench, Mumbai, by impugned order dated 18th May, 2018 in C.P. (IB)-

146/MB/2018, admitted the application, passed order of 'Moratorium'

and pursuant to proceeding, an 'Interim Resolution Professional' was

appointed.

Contd/-..............

-2-

2. The Appellant- Mr. Dinesh Kumar Bhasin, a Shareholder of the

'Corporate Debtor' has challenged the order dated 18th May, 2018 on two

counts namely--

i. The impugned order of admission was passed without

hearing the 'Corporate Debtor' in violation of principle of

natural justice and against the decision of this Appellate

Tribunal in "Innoventive Industries Limited V/s. ICICI

Bank- Company Appeals (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1 & 2 of

2017" as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

ii. If the hearing would have been given, the 'Corporate Debtor'

could have pointed out the grounds for rejection and in case

of non-acceptance, the 'Corporate Debtor' could have settled

the dispute.

3. It is further submitted that the parties have already reached the

settlement and a sum of Rs. 28.68 lakhs has been paid by two demand

drafts which has been taken note by this Appellate Tribunal by its order

dated 25th June, 2018.

4. On the earlier date, Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for

the Respondent submitted that the total amount of Rs. 33 lakhs is

payable and out of which they had handed over two demand drafts

amounting to Rs. 28.68 lakhs. Today, it is informed that rest of the

amount of Rs. 4,32,000/- has been paid as full and final payment and

thereby total amount of Rs. 33 lakhs have been paid. -3-

5. He further submits that another sum of Rs. 3,01,678/- has been

paid by the Appellant on behalf of the 'Corporate Debtor' in favour of

Respondent towards legal dues of the Appellant and the cost of the

'Resolution Professional' who has worked for a period which is less than

one month.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into

consideration the fact that the impugned order dated 18th May, 2018 was

passed by the Adjudicating Authority without hearing the 'Corporate

Debtor' in violation of rules of natural justice and all the time the

'Corporate Debtor' was ready to settle the matter, we have no other option

but to set aside the impugned order dated 18th May, 2018, However,

taking into consideration the fact that the parties are ready to settle the

dispute, the case is not remanded to the Adjudicating Authority.

7. In effect, order (s), passed by the Adjudicating Authority

appointing any 'Interim Resolution Professional', declaring moratorium,

freezing of account, and all other order (s) passed by the Adjudicating

Authority pursuant to impugned order and action, if any, taken by the

'Interim Resolution Professional', including the advertisement, if any,

published in the newspaper calling for applications all such orders and

actions are declared illegal and are set aside. The application preferred

by Respondent under Section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016 is dismissed.

Learned Adjudicating Authority will now close the proceeding. The

'Corporate Debtor' (company) is released from all the rigour of -4-

law and is allowed to function independently through its Board of

Directors from immediate effect.

8. As agreed by the parties, the Respondent will now pay a sum of

Rs. 1.5 lakhs (Rupees One lakh five thousand only) to the 'Interim

Resolution Professional', for the period he has functioned and towards

the resolution cost. The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observation.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no

order as to cost.

(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson

(Justice A.I.S. Cheema) Member(Judicial) Ar/uk