Srm Energy Tamilnadu Private Limited vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1796 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: SRM Energy Tamilnadu Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent Present: For Appellant : Mr. Chandhok, Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. Dhaval Mehrotra, Ms. Aditi Desai, Advocates

ORDER

(HYBRID MODE)

28.04.2025: This appeal is against an impugned order dated

06.08.2024 passed by the ld. NCLT. Admittedly, the Appellant had filed a

petition u/s 10 of IBC, 2016 for initiation of CIRP process. It was a case of

the Appellant that the Appellant had complied with the provisions of section

10 of IBC and is not disqualified u/s 11 of the IBC hence its application/

petition u/s 10 IBC ought to have been admitted by the ld. NCLT.

2. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Appellant there was a default

of a debt to the tune of Rs. 43.26 crores as on 04.06.2024 and that the

Corporate Debtor is not doing any business for the last ten year and has

incurred losses.

3. However, ld. Counsel for Respondent has referred to Form 6 filed by

the Appellant along with its petition u/s 10 of IBC which reveals the dues

of SEBI to the extent of 99.85% of the total dues and hence it is argued the

intention of the Appellant to file this petition u/s 10 of IBC was malafide and

to avoid the dues of the Respondent.

4. On the other hand the Appellant submits once the conditions u/s 10

of IBC are satisfied there is no power with the ld. NCLT to dismiss its

petition and rather the ld. NCLT ought to have admitted it. The Respondent,

1 however, relied upon Agroha Paper Industries Private Limited vs. Bank

of Maharashtra in CA (AT)(Ins. ) 1342 of 2023 to plead the application is

not bonafide, has to be rejected, as in this case the intention of promoters

herein was only to get an admission order to avoid proceedings under SEBI.

5. We have gone through the impugned order. The ld. NCLT has though

dismissed the petition alleging malafide on the part of the appellants but has

not discussed the effect of BCL Homes Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank & Ors. (2018

SCC onLine NCLAT 134) Mohinish Kumar & Ors. Vs. Premsons Super

Steels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2023 SCC online NCLAT 1597), Unigreen Global

Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (2017 SCC OnLine NCLAT 566),

Gemini Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Bank of India (2018 SCC OnLine

NCLAT 920).

6. While reading the impugned order we find its para 7 and 8 does not

deal with the submissions made by the Appellant as also the law relied upon

by it. It would be appropriate if the matter is remanded and we request the

ld. NCLT to hear it afresh. The impugned order is accordingly set aside.

Nothing above shall be treated as an opinion on merit of this case.

7. List before the ld. NCLT on 27.05.2025. Parties to appear.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical) ss/rr

2