Hindustan Motors Ltd vs Na

Present: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Ms Vanita Bhargava, Mr. Rohan Jaitley, Advocates for the appellant.

ORDER

28.04.2017- The appellant, M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd, filed an application

before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under Section 15(1} of the Sick Industrial Companies iSpecial Provisions} Act, 1985 iSICA}. twas registered as Case Wo.28/2014 and an order of inpunction was passed on 1% October, 2015. When the matter was pending, the National Company Law Tribunal was constituted with effect from. 1.8.2016 and under Section 434{iva} the matter which were pending before erstwhile Compary

Law Board stood trangferred to National Company Law Tribunal.

With regard to the cases pending before AAIFR and BIFR, by virtue of @h Schedule of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 amendment to Sick industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) has heen made

and in Section 4, for sub clause {b), the following sub clause was substituted:-

*fh) On such date us may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf any appeal preferred to the Appellate Authority or any reference nmuaide or inquiry pending te or before the Board or uny proceeding of whatever nature pending before the Appellate Authority or the Board under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions} Aci, 1988 shall stand abated:

Provided that a compary in respect of which such appeal or reference or inquiry stands abated under this clhruse may make reference to the national Company Law T ribunal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 within ar hundred and eighty days from the commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 mm accordance UTR the provisions of the Insalvency and Bankruptcy Cude, O18.

Provided further no fees shall be payable for making such reference under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by a compury whose appeal or reference or mquiry stands abated under this clause."

in view of substituted sub clause {b} of Section 4, proceedings of AAIPR and BIFR inchiding the Case No.28/2014 preferred by the appellant stoad abated. In that view of the matter the appellant preferred the company petition Ne.83/2017 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkate

Bench with following prayer:

"a} clarifications be issued by reason of abatement af proceedings before BIFR in terms of the reference under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Special Provisions) Act, 1985 by reason of the commencement of The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions} Repeul Act, 3003, all orders pussed by the Board under the previous enactment stands abated and are no longer in force; and

{bh} In the alternative, permission be granted to effect sale of as "Ambassador Brand" to Peugeot Citroen Automoliles SA. in terms of the Transfer Agreement or to sell the "Ambassador Brand" to any third party if the sale af the Brand does not occur pursuant to the Transfer Agreement."

The Tribunal having noticed the provisions including Section SUL ejat

the Sick Industrial Companies Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003 observed

"After the abatement of the proceedings in BIFK the petitioner company is at liberty to move a petition. under IBC Code, 2016 unthin 186 days from the date of notification but ull date no petition has heen moved under the IRC Code, 201 6. The petitioner company has moved an application for clarification under Section S{L fc } of the Sick Industrial

wed

>

Companies (Special Provisions|Repeal Act, 2003, which is not meuntainable. if is to be made clear that by virtue of above mentioned Repeal Act, 2003, which came into force on Ist December, 2016, the petitioner may file, afer the abatement of the proceedings, under the IBC Code, 2016, | for putiation af corporate insolvency proceeding, then anly t can be taken cognizance of Proceedings in the nature of clarification is not mantoiiable under Section S{iNe ) of the Repeat Act, 2003 before the Tribunal. Therefore, the petition is to be dismissed as not mueantainabie."

Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, we find no ground ta interfere in the impugned judgement. The declaration as was sought for stands explained by amendment to SICA, as made by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and noticed above. With the aforesaid observation,

the appeal stands disposed of.

(Justice 8. J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson

iMr. Balvinder Singh) Member iTechnical}

brn