Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Shameek Breweries Pvt. Ltd vs Manoj Kumar Agarwal & Anr

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal17 January 2020

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere with an order recalling an earlier order that had permitted withdrawal of a Section 7 application, where the aggrieved party was the financial creditor and the promoters, who were not appellants, had not challenged the recall; the Tribunal therefore did not direct the promoters to provide clean money as a condition of appeal, and dismissed the appeal.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 843 of 2019IN THE MATTER OF:

Shameek Breweries Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Vs

Manoj Kumar Agarwal & Anr. ....Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Aarif Akhtar, Advocate.

For Respondents: Mr. A. K. Mishra, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Rajesh Rattan, Advocate for R-3.

ORDER

17.01.2020: In the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against 'Sterling

SEZ & Infrastructure Ltd.' (Corporate Debtor), the Promoters moved application

under Section 12A. Resolution Professional placed the same before the

Committee of Creditors, which approved the 12A proposal with 92% voting share

by resolution dated 28th March, 2019. The application for withdrawal under

Section 7 filed by 'SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd.' was placed by the Resolution

Professional before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal),

Mumbai Bench, Mumbai which was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority by

order dated 10th April, 2019.

2. Subsequently, one M.A. No. 1245 of 2019 was filed by Ministry of

Corporate Affairs saying that one Mr. Jasbeer Singh, authorised representative

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 843 of 2019 -2-

of the Managing Director who is absconding, intimated that the Promoters are

absconding and left India. The Enforcement Directorate has also initiated

proceedings. Various allegations were levelled against the Promoters, which

were noticed by the Adjudicating Authority who recalled the earlier order dated

10th April, 2019 by impugned order dated 26th April, 2019 and allowed the

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process to continue.

3. 270 days has crossed. This appeal has been preferred by 'Shameek

Breweries Pvt. Ltd.', one of the Financial Creditor against the order dated 26th

April, 2019. Mr. Rajesh Rattan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Committee of Creditors supported the case of the Appellant and referred to

decision of this Appellate Tribunal in 'Andhra Bank' Vs. 'Sterling Biotech

Limited & Ors.', Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 612 of 2019 disposed of

on 28th August, 2019 and further clarification by order dated 18th November,

2019. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the Promoter

time till 31st March, 2020 to comply with the order. It is submitted that 'Sterling

Biotech Limited' is Associate Company of 'Sterling SEZ & Infrastructure Ltd.'

(Corporate Debtor) and the Promoters are common. They have absconded and

left India but ready to provide clean money to the Bank and therefore, the appeal

should be allowed.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 843 of 2019 -3-

4. In the present case, as we find that the Promoters have not challenged the

impugned order dated 26th April, 2019 and are not aggrieved against order of

recall, at the instance of the Financial Creditor/ Committee of Creditors, we are

not inclined to direct Promoters to provide clean money.

5. For the said reason, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned

order dated 26th April, 2019 on an appeal preferred by the Financial Creditor, it

is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial)

am/sk

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 843 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