Uti Structured Debt Opportunities ... vs Pinkush Jaiswal
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 89 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal disposed of the appeal by directing that the Resolution Professional may receive resolution plans but must not open them or take any decision on them, and that the status quo be maintained until a week after the third Member decides the pending interlocutory applications. The order gives no reasoning on the legal principles governing the admission of financial creditor claims, the power to maintain status quo, or the scope of the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction; its directions rest on the procedural posture and the pendency of the matters before the third Member, with no stated principle beyond that.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 89 of 2021 IN THE MATTER OF: UTI Structured Debt Opportunities Fund-I ...Appellant
Versus Ms. Pinkush Jaiswal IRP of Mercator Petroleum Ltd. .... Respondent
Present: - For Appellant: Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Himanshu Satija, Mr. Tejas Agarwal and Mr. Ankit Lohia, Advocates. For Respondent: Ms. Ankita Singhania and Mr. Amit Jaste, Advocates.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
08.02.2021 Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The Appeal filed by the Appellant against the order dated 22.01.2021 in IA
24/MB/2021 in C.P. (IB) 3434/(MB)/2019 passed by Adjudicating Authority,
National Company Law Tribunal, Court-V, Mumbai Bench.
3. The case of the Appellant is that the Appellant is a financial service
provider and a Category II- Alternate Investment Fund registered with the
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and floated by UTI Structured
Debt Opportunities Trust having SEBI Registration No. IN/AIF/17-18/0358, as
per the applicable laws. The Appellant is represented by its investment manager,
that is, UTI Capital Limited. The investment manager is empowered to
administer and manage the Appellant and take all actions in relation thereto.
4. The Respondent is the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) appointed by
the Ld. Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 31.08.2020 in Company Petition 2
(IB) No. 3434 of 2019 in respect of the Corporate Debtor - Mercator Petroleum
Limited, under Section 9 of the insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
5. The Mercator Limited (ML) is a private limited company engaged inter alia
in the business of shipping and mercantile operations.
6. The Appellant agreed to subscribe the Debentures that were being issued
by ML. Axis Trustee Services Limited was appointed as the Debenture Trustee in
respect of the aforesaid Debentures in Trust and benefit of the Debentures
Holders i.e. the Appellant.
7. The Deed of Corporate Guarantee dated 26th March, 2018 was also entered
into by the Debenture Trustee (on behalf and for the benefit of the Appellant)
and the Corporate debtor, along with the Debenture Trust Deed, on 26th March,
2018.
8. Pursuant to the aforesaid transaction, the Appellant disbursed Rs. 130
Crores (in multiple tranches) by allotment of 1300 Secured Non-Convertible
Debentures having a face value of Rs. 10,00,000/- each to the Appellant, on
terms set out the Debenture Trust Deed and other Transaction Documents.
9. The Appellant then learnt that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
had been initiated in respect of the Corporate Debtor vide order dated 31st
August, 2020 by Ld. Adjudicating Authority. On 24th September, 2020 the
Appellant lodged its claims of Rs. 2,57,84,25,381/- with the Respondent.
10. On 2nd October, 2020 the Respondent addressed an e-mail to the Appellant
inter alia stating that the Respondent was not admitting the Appellant's claim
for the reasons set out therein.
11. On 3rd October, 2020, the Respondent served a copy of the Interlocutory
Application No. 1746 of 2020 on this Appellant, filed before the Ld. Adjudicating
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 89 of 2021 3
Authority for seeking avoidance of the Appellant's transaction and other reliefs
as more particularly set out therein.
12. Aggrieved by the rejection of the Appellant's claim by the Respondent, on
6th October, 2020 the Appellant filed an Interlocutory Application No. 1628 of
2020 in the Company Petition No. 3434 of 2019 before the Ld. Adjudicating
Authority.
13. The Appellant thereafter mentioned the I.A. NO. 1628 of 2020 on 9th
October, 2020 before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority and the Ld. Adjudicating
Authority directed the Respondent to file its reply on or before 13th October, 2020
and listed the matter for 14th October, 2020.
14. On 14th October, 2020, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority heard the parties
and directed the parties to inter alia complete their pleadings and posted the
matter for 13th November, 2020 for hearing.
15. The parties completed their pleadings. The matter was heard by this
Hon'ble Tribunal on three occasions, on 13th, 26th & 27th November, 2020 and
after that both the I.As bearing I.A. No. 1628 of 2020 and I.A. No. 1746 of 2020
were reserved for Orders.
16. Thereafter, parties filed their Written Submissions on 1st December, 2020
in both the Applications.
17. On 2nd December, 2020 the Appellant learnt that the Respondent had
issued an Expression of Interest (EOI) on 14th November, 2020 and the last date
for receipt of EOI from the prospective resolution Applicants was 5th December,
2020. Thereafter, time for submission of expression of interest by the prospective
resolution Applicants was extended to 20th December, 2020.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 89 of 2021 4
18. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that he has a right to
participate in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, however, the said
right has been curtailed by the Respondent by wrongly rejecting the claim of the
Appellant.
19. On 7th January, 2021, I.A. NO. 1628 of 2020 and I.A. No. 1746 of 2020
were listed before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority at which time different opinions
were passed. The matters will now have to be heard and finally decided by a third
Hon'ble Member and thereafter appropriate orders be passed thereupon. The
matters are now fixed for hearing on 12th February, 2021 before the third
Member.
20. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that CIRP is continuing and
propose resolution plan from the Applicant have been asked to be filed latest by
18th February, 2021.
21. It was further submitted that as I.A. No. 1628 of 2020 and I.A. No. 1746
of 2020 is pending for hearing before the Ld. third Member and status qua not
maintained, this cause serious prejudice to the Appellant. So status quo
prevailing till orders of the Ld. third Member.
21. Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposed the prayer.
22. From the perusal of the orders dated 18.12.2020 at page 379 Vol.-II of the
Appeal Paper Book passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority it appears that "In
view of the orders being reserved for I.A. 1628 of 2020 and I.A. 1746 of 2020, the
IRP is directed to extend the EOI for a period of 15 days i.e. 5th January, 2021. I.A.
is partly allowed and disposed off."
23. After hearing the parties we dispose of the Appeal with the following
directions.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 89 of 2021 5
i) Resolution Professional is permitted to receive the Resolution Plan but he
will not open Resolution Plan and will not take any decision. The status quo
prevailing as on today, shall be maintained till one week after the Ld. third
Member decide the matter.
ii) The Ld. third Member of the Adjudicating Authority is directed to hear the
I.A. No. 1628 of 2020 & I.A. No. 1746 of 2020 and decide the same on such as
expeditiously as possible.
iii) This Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
iv) The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the Ld.
Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal, Court-V, Mumbai
Bench for compliance.
[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)
[Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)
R. N./ nn /
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 89 of 2021
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