Sarvadnya Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Khandoba Prasanna Sakhar Karkhana Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 897 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The ratio here rests on the parties' agreed position rather than on any reasoned legal principle, and the court itself records no independent reasoning on the point. The appeal was disposed of on a concession that the plant is owned by the appellant, and on that footing the court directed restoration of possession of the machinery to the appellant, leaving the secured creditor's legal claim to possession open. Because the court states no rule of law beyond this consensual factual premise and the direction that follows from it, there is no reasoned ratio to extract from the text. NO_RATIO: The order disposes of the appeal on the parties' agreed position that the machinery belongs to the appellant and is not a corporate debtor asset, and directs restoration of possession; it states no reasoned legal principle of its own.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Sarvadnya Industries Private Limited 65, Balupatlachi Wadi Taluka Khandala Satara - 415521 Through its Director Anand Narayan Kadam ...Appellant
Versus
1. M/s Khandoba Prasanna Sakhar Karkhana Limited Through Resolution Professional 52/788, Lokmanya Nagar near Jogging Park Pune, Maharashtra - 411030
2. M/s Sai Agro (India) Chemicals Through Partners Ghat No.892, Near Ingavale Mala Alate Hatkanangale, Kolhapur Maharashtra - 416109 ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Ajay K. Jain and Mr. Atanu Mukherjee, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Prashant S. Kenjale, Advocate Mr. Swapan Pradhan, Advocate for R-2 Mr. Shikhil Suri, Shiv Kumar Suri, Ms. Shilpa Saini, Ms. Nikita Thappar and Ms. Vinishma Kaul, Advocates for RP.
ORDER
16.12.2019 This appeal is listed with Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)
No. 943 of 2019 arising out of same Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
(CIRP). Advocates present agree that issue involved in this appeal is distinct
and this appeal can be heard and decided separately.
2
2. We have heard the Learned Counsel for appellant M/s Sarvadnya
Industries Pvt. Ltd. We have also heard the Resolution Professional Sh.
Jitendra Palande who is present and the Advocate Sh. Swapan Pradhan for
respondent No.2 the successful resolution applicant.
3. CIRP proceedings were initiated against the respondent No.1 Corporate
Debtor on 1st January, 2018. It appears that in the process, the appellant filed
claim with the Resolution Professional claiming to be Financial Creditor for the
rent for pre - CIRP period relating to the machinery installed which is Ethanol
Plant in the premises of the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Professional
states that the appellant was informed to file Form claiming operational debt, if
the appellant wanted to file claim but the same was not filed. It is stated that
even from before CIRP starting the Corporate Debtor was not functional or in
operation and for such reasons when the resolution plan was approved, no
amount towards rent of the machinery during period of CIRP was provided. It is
also stated that no provision was made also because the appellant falls in the
category of related party to the Corporate Debtor. The Learned Counsel for the
appellant, states that the Corporate Debtor and appellant are both MSME
however now the appellant is not pursuing matter regarding rent. The Learned
Counsel states that the appellant only wants restoration of the machinery.
4. The respondent No.2 Successful Resolution applicant has in reply (Diary
No.14749) stated in para 21 as under:
"21. The provision for rental income could not be made as the ethanol plant was in operation only for 5 months. Also, there is no question of 3
making a provision for plant and machinery of the appellant in the Resolution plan as the said assets is owned by the Appellant and the same is in the possession of the Janata Sahkari Bank Limited."
5. Counsel for respondent No.2 accepts this as the stand of the respondent
No.2. It is stated that in the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 943 of 2019 (which
is above on Board today) in reply of respondent No.2 (Diary No.14998) in para
12, 13 it is stated that the plant is in possession of the Janata Sahkari Bank
Limited and they have put it up for auction and that respondent No.2 has
submitted bid in that process.
6. Learned Resolution Professional present also states that the machinery is
owned by the appellant and it is stated that before CIRP proceedings started
the machinery was attached by Janata Sahkari Bank Limited invoking "The
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Securities Interest Act, 2002" and thus, although the machinery is the owned
by appellant it is in legal possession of the Janata Sahkari Bank Limited
though physically machinery is in the premises of the Corporate Debtor.
7. Both sides agree that as per explanation below Section 18 of Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the plant is owned by appellant and thus does
not belong to the Corporate Debtor, and is thus owned by third party, i.e. The
Appellant.
8. As such we direct that the possession of the plant machinery shall be
restored to the appellant through Janata Sahkari Bank Limited, Pune. The
respondents will act accordingly. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. The
claim of the Janata Sahkari Bank Limited with regard to the legal possession of 4
the plant is left open and not disturbed, for the bank to take appropriate action
under the provisions of law.
[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)
[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)
PKS/SK
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