Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Uti Structured Debt Opportunities ... vs Pinkush Jaiswal

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal8 February 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