Mtl Pipes India Limited vs Vikas Prakash Gupta Resolution ...

MTL Pipes India Ltd. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Vikas Prakash Gupta ...Respondent(s) Resolution Professional & Ors.

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Karan Malhotra, Mr. Ayush Pratap Singh, Mr. Anant Shanka Tripathi, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate for R-1. WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 882 of 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

Jagdish Jamaklal Mansukhani ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Vikas Prakash Gupta & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : For Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate for R-1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

21.05.2025: These two appeals have been filed against an impugned

order dated 06.10.2021 whereby the Ld. NCLT had passed following order:

"9. In view of the above, this Bench Orders the following:-

(i) Cancels the Tripartite Agreement executed on 25.10.2019 during the Moratorium period in violation of Section 14 of the IBC.

The Bench further directs the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Limited to cancel its registration of the -2-

Tripartite Agreement as Mr. Vinod Kuwadia of Maan Tubinox Ltd has fraudulently and without any authority of the Resolution Professional to whom the responsibility of running the Corporate Debtor has passed u/s 74.

(ii) The General Manager, Madhya Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation is also directed to cancel its Order dated 29.06.2019 by which it allowed the Sub-lease of land admeasuring 24,281.2 sq. mtr to M/s. Maan Tubinox Limited.

(iii) This Bench finds that each of the Corporate Debtor ex- director/ promoter have violated Section 66 and also Section 14 of the IBC and, therefore, in terms of Section 74 of the IBC, impose a fine of Rs.5 lakh (Rupees Five Lakh Only). On each of them. This fine will be credited to the bank account of the Corporate Debtor Company within five working days from the pronouncement of this Order.

10. The RP is directed to file compliance report within 3 weeks of the pronouncement of this Order."

2. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to the order dated

19.03.2024 passed in the present appeals wherein it was noted a Tripartite

Agreement of 2019 was entered into between the Appellant, Respondent and

MPIDC and despite that MPIDC was never made a party and instead Madhya

Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation was made a party before

the Ld. NCLT.

3. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant the Appellant

is a sub-lessee of land admeasuring 24,281.2 sq. mtrs. in the subject property

and such sub-lease was executed vide the Tripartite Agreement on

25.10.2019, which stood cancelled vide the impugned order.

4. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant since the

necessary and proper parties were not there before the Ld. NCLT, hence, it

would be appropriate the impugned order be set aside and after making -3-

MPIDC a party to the list below; the appellant be allowed to pursue its case

before the Ld. NCLT. The Learned Counsel for MPIDC also supports this plea.

5. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Liquidator submits the

liquidator shall move an application to implead MPIDC as a party before the

Ld. NCLT so that the matter may be decided with concerned/relevant parties

on board.

6. Since MPIDC with whom the Tripartite Agreement dated 25.10.2019

was entered into by the Appellant was never a party before the Ld. NCLT,

hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Ld.

NCLT to decide it afresh after MPIDC is impleaded as a party on an application

by the Liquidator. Both these appeals are disposed of in terms of above. The

impugned order is thus set aside. Pending application(s) filed in Company

Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 877 of 2021 and 882 of 2021 are also disposed of.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)

R.N./Manu