Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Grid Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs Hythro Power Corporation Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal22 February 2019

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Adjudicating Authority, when a pending Section 9 application appears to be covered by matters before the Supreme Court, may not adjourn the proceedings sine die without first considering the issues pending before the Supreme Court and their bearing on the application; it must decide the matter in light of those issues after the parties have placed the relevant orders and status of the pending cases on record.

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

Judgment

As delivered

1NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 33 of 2019IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s. Grid Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Vs.

M/s. Hythro Power Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: - Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate.

O R D E R

22.02.2019─ The Appellant- 'M/s. Grid Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd.' filed an

application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

for initiation of the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against

'M/s. Hythro Power Corporation Ltd.'- ('Corporate Debtor'). The

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Principal

Bench, New Delhi, by impugned order dated 11th October, 2018 referring

an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court adjourned the

proceedings sine die, which reads as follows:

"ORDER

In pursuance of the order dated 08.10.2018,

the Memorandum of Association along with Articles

of Association has been filed. A perusal of the

Clause 2& 3 of the moa show that the corporate

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 33 of 2019 2

debtor is to act as a developer for power projects in

private sector and to design, test and commission

the electromechanical equipments and accessories

of Hidel thermal power projects. The matter appears

to be covered by the order passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. It is in the aforesaid circumstances

that given in connected matter we have deferred the

order because Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed

the following order:-

"Issue notice.

Heard the learned counsel appearing

for the parties.

For the grounds stated in the Transfer

Petitions, we allow transfer of W.P. ( C) No. 20672-

20676/2018 [Dharani Sugars & Chemicals Limited

vs. Union of India & Ors.] pending before the High

Court of Judicature at Madras, Special Civil

Application No. 12492 of 2018 [Shipyards

Association of India vs. Union of India & Ors.]

pending before the High Court of Gujarat at

Ahmedabad, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18170 of

2018 [ Independent Power Producers Association of

India vs. Union of India & Ors.], Civil Misc. Writ

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 33 of 2019 3

Petition No. 23181 of 2018 [ Association of Power

Producers & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.], Civil

Misc. Writ Petition No. 23183 of 2018 [Prayagraj

Power Generation Company Limited vs. Union of

India & Ors.] pending before the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad, W.P. No. 16095 of

2018[The South Indian Sugar Mills Association-

Tamil Nadu vs. The Reserve Bank of India ] pending

before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Writ

Petition ( C ) No. 7221/2018 [Vayam Technologies

Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.], Writ

Petition (C) No. 6463/2018 [All India Bank Officers

Confederation vs. Union of India & Anr.] pending

before the High Court Delhi at New Delhi to this

Court.

Let the records of the cases be transferred

without delay. The transfer petitions are allowed in

the afore-stated terms. Status quo, as of today, shall

be maintained in the meantime. WRIT PETITION (C )

NO. 1086/2018: Issue notice. Petitions for final

disposal on Wednesday, the 14th November, 2018"

In view of the above, the proceedings are adjourned

sine die. Liberty granted to the petitioner to move

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 33 of 2019 4

appropriate application as and when such an

eventuality arises."

2. Notices were issued on Respondents but in spite of service of

notice, none has appeared.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted

that the case is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court relates to

decision of the Reserve Bank of India. Writ petition were filed in different

High Courts. Transfer petitions have been allowed in terms as mentioned

in the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court has directed to maintain status quo till the next date. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court has not passed any specific order directing to maintain

status quo with regard to all power generation companies.

4. However, in absence of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, this Appellate Tribunal is of the view that the Adjudicating

Authority should not have adjourned the matter sine die, without

discussing the issue pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. In the circumstance, this Appellate Tribunal allow the Appellant to

file an additional affidavit before the Adjudicating Authority enclosing the

copies of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases

as referred to above and may also provide the present status of those

cases. They will specifically state as to what are the issues involved in the

writ petition(s) which have been transferred and whether they relate to

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 33 of 2019 5

'M/s. Hythro Power Corporation Ltd.'- ('Corporate Debtor') or in general

with regard to all the 'Hidel Thermal Power'. If such affidavit is filed along

with orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Adjudicating

Authority will take up the matter within fortnight and pass appropriate

orders taking into consideration issues pending consideration before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations. No cost.

(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson

Ar/g

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 33 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