Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction ... vs Gwalior Bypass Projects Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal8 March 2022

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

For a contempt of this Tribunal's earlier judgment to be made out, there must be wilful disobedience of a direction actually contained in that judgment; where the earlier judgment's operative direction was addressed to another authority and imposed no obligation on the party proceeded against, no contempt arises from that party's failure to act on the matter.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHIContempt Case (AT) No. 26 of 2021 inCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1186 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF: Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited ...Applicant

Versus

Gwalior Bypass Projects Ltd. (Through Its Resolution Professional, Mr. Shailesh Verma) ...Contemnor/Respondent Present: For Applicant: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Ms. Renuka Iyer, Mr. Aditya Vashisth, Advocates. For Contemnor/ Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Respondent: Shantanu Chaturvedi, Ms. Mukta Halbe and Mr. Manmeet Singh, Ms. Priya Singh, Advocates for RP.

ORDER

(Virtual Mode)

08.03.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant and Respondent.

This Contempt Application has been filed by the Applicant seeking initiation

of contempt proceedings against the Resolution Professional of the Corporate

Debtor for wilful disobedience of the Judgement of this Tribunal passed on

08.03.2021.

2. Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 1186 of 2019 was filed by the Applicant

challenging the Order of the Resolution Professional by which Resolution

Professional had refused to admit the claim of the Appellant in the Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process initiated against the Corporate Guarantor

which was allowed by this Tribunal and Paragraph 8, 9(A) and 9(B) held

followings:

"8. For above reasons discussed by us in the matter of "Athena Energy", we find that the present Appeal is required to be allowed. We do not find that there is bar -2-

for the Financial Creditor to proceed against the principal borrower as well as Corporate Guarantor at the same time, either in CIRPs or file claims in both CIRPs.

9(A). For the above reasons, the present Appeal is allowed. Impugned Order is quashed and set aside. We find that the claim submitted by the Appellant was required to be considered by the IRP/RP in the CIRP Proceedings. The matter is remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority and the Adjudicating Authority is requested to pass further Orders with regard to the claim made by the Appellant which was required to be considered by the IRP/RP. The Resolution Plan pending for approval before the Adjudicating Authority may be sent back to CoC for reconsideration in view of the present Orders in Appeal.

(B) It is made clear that the Adjudicating Authority may separately decide the Avoidance Application on its merits in accordance with law which is stated to have been filed. We have not expressed any view on the said controversy."

3. Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Advocate submits that in respect of the Order

passed by this Tribunal on 08th March, 2021 acceptance of the claim of the

Appellant is lingering and Resolution Professional has not admitted the claim

so far. He further submits that actions of the Resolution Professional in

pursuing the Application for Avoidance is also an act which indicate that he is

not interested in admitting the claim of the Appellant.

4. We have considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the

Appellant and perused the record.

5. This Contempt Application has been filed for wilful disobedience of the

Judgment dated 08.03.2021. This Tribunal after taking the view that claim of

the Appellant was required to be considered has issued direction in Paragraph

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1186 of 2019 -3-

9(A) by remitting the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority and

Adjudicating Authority was requested to pass further orders with regard to the

claim made by the Appellant which was required to be considered by the

IRP/RP. Thus, with regard to the claim, the direction was issued to the

Adjudicating Authority to pass appropriate orders and there was no direction

by the Court to Resolution Professional to admit the claim or consider the

claim. Thus, there was no direction to the RP with regard to the claim of the

Appellant. We fail to see that how there is any wilful disobedience of the

Judgment dated 08.03.2021 by the Resolution Professional. Present is the

case where no wilful disobedience of the Judgment is made out, we see no

merit in the Contempt Application. The Contempt Application is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)

Basant/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1186 of 2019

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free