High Court of Andhra Pradesh
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
Axis Bank Limited
Versus
Naturol Bioenergy Limited
COMPANY APPLICATION No.1691 OF 2011, 75 & 285 OF 2012
Decided On : 24-04-2012
Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act - Section 391, 32 Companies Act - Section 15(1) - Corporate Debt Restructuring – Publish notices for Convening - CDR filed Limited to issue and publish notices for convening, holding and conducting of meetings of the creditors for approval of the proposed scheme of arrangement, and for the immediate implementation of the package by order in. directed that a meeting of the secured creditors of NBL be convened at their registered office for the purpose of considering the reworked CDR Package, and for implementation of the MRA with NBL., an Advocate of this Court, was appointed as the Chairman of the meeting. Court also directed that notice be given to each creditor, and an advertisement be published in “Business Standard earlier order, in was modified and, in the place of, Advocate, was appointed as the Chairman to convene and hold the meeting of the secured creditors of NBL at their registered office, and the application was directed to be listed for the report of the Chairman extension of time was sought for submission of the report of the Chairman. Court noted that Axis Bank had raised objections with regards acceptance of the Chairman’s report and, hence, the application was adjourned for Axis Bank to place on record their objections –Held, An order passed without authority of law has no effect. It neither creates any right in favour of a party for whom such order is made nor does it impose any obligation on the opposite party against whom it was passed order passed without jurisdiction would be null, non est and void ab initio as a defect in the jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter of test of jurisdiction over the subject matter is whether the court or Tribunal can decide the case at all, and not whether the court has authority to issue a particular kind of order in the course of deciding the case. A court may recall an order earlier made by it if the proceedings culminating into an order suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction, and such lack of jurisdiction is patent. A distinction has to be drawn between lack of jurisdiction and a mere error in exercise of jurisdiction former strikes at the very root of the exercise and want of jurisdiction may vitiate the proceedings rendering them and the orders passed therein a nullity. A mere error in exercise of jurisdiction does not vitiate the legality and validity of the proceedings and the order passed thereon unless set aside in the manner known to law by laying a challenge –Ordered Accordingly.
1. C.A.No.1691 of 2011 is filed by M/s Naturol Bioenergy Limited (hereinafter called as ‘NBL’) to issue and publish notices for convening, holding and conducting of meetings of the creditors for approval of the proposed scheme of arrangement, and for the immediate implementation of the package. This Court, by order in C.A.No.1691 of 2011 dated 21.11.2011, directed that a meeting of the secured creditors of NBL be convened on 24.12.2011 at 10.30 A.M. at their registered office for the purpose of considering the reworked CDR Package, and for implementation of the MRA with NBL. Sri Ch.Pushyam Kiran, an Advocate of this Court, was appointed as the Chairman of the meeting. This Court also directed that notice be given to each creditor, and an advertisement be published in “Business Standard” (English daily) Mumbai and Hyderabad editions and “Andhra Prabha” (Telugu daily) Hyderabad edition. In its order dated 22.11.2011 this Court noted the affidavit placed on record by Sri Ch.Pushyam Kiran that he had appeared on behalf of one of the creditors of NBL. The earlier order, in C.A.No.1691 of 2011 dated 21.11.2011, was modified and, in the place of Sri Ch.Pushyam Kiran, Sri B.S.Sivaji, Advocate, was appointed as the Chairman to convene and hold the meeting of the secured creditors of NBL on 24.12.2011 at 10.30 A.M. at their registered office, and the application was directed to be listed on 30.12.2011 for the report of the Chairman. On 30.12.2011, extension of time was sought for submission of the report of the Chairman. Thereafter, on 06.01.2012, this Court noted that Axis Bank had raised objections with regards acceptance of the Chairman’s report and, hence, the application was adjourned to 18.12.2012 for Axis Bank to place on record their objections. C.A.No.75 of 2012 is filed by NBL requesting this Court to receive the additional affidavit together withthe documents filed therewith. C.A.No.285 of 2012 is filed by Axis Bank Limited to recall the order passed on 21.11.2011, and the modification order passed on 22.11.2011; to declare the convening of the meeting of the creditors held on 24.12.2011, pursuant to the order passed in C.A.No.1691 of 2011, as being null and void; and to dismiss C.A.No.1691 of 2011. All the three applications were heard together, and are now being disposed of by this common order. C.A.No.75 of 2012 is allowed and the additional affidavit, and the documents filed therewith by NBL, is taken on record.
2. In their affidavit filed in support of C.A.No.1691 of 2011, NBL have detailed their efforts to liquidate their stock to enable them to pay their debts, but attributed their inability to do so to global recession, and extreme price fluctuations of petro-crude, and crude palm oil, which constituted the main raw material for bio-diesel. It is their case that these factors resulted in erosion of the inventory value of biodiesel to an extent of Rs.30.00 crores; a joint meeting of its lendors was convened on 3.6.2009 but to no avail; Axis Bank, one of the lendors of NBL, had filed a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the amount appropriated by another creditor of NBL i.e., ICICI Bank contrary to the inter-se agreement between all the banks for apportionment of the amounts realized from NBL; thereafter NBL had entered into negotiations, with the consortium of lenders led by IDBI Bank, on the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) package approved by the CDR cell constituted in accordance with the directives of the Reserve Bank of India; the CDR package provided that all the dues/debts from NBL, until the cut off date of 1.4.2009, should be restructured and repaid over a period of 10 years in a progressive manner; Axis Bank did not accept the CDR package in view of the stipulation of 1.4.2009 as the cut off date for restructuring of the debt due by NBL; as the CDR package was not accepted by all the banks, a reworked and approved CDR package was sought to be implemented between NBL and the
Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340
Pankaj Bhargava v. Mohinder Nath (1991) 1 SCC 556.
Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb (1999) 4 SCC 396.
Tata Motors Ltd. v. Pharmaceutical Products of India Limited (2008 (7) SCC 619
NGEF Ltd v. Chandra Developers (P) Ltd (2005 (8) SCC 219
Rajeswar Prasad Misra v State of W.B AIR 1965 SC 1887
Chandra Prakash v State of U.P. (2002) 4 SCC 234.
Ballabhdas Mathurdas Lakhani v. Municipal Committee
Narinder Singh v. Surjit Singh (1984)2 SCC 402
Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer (1984) 2 SCC 324
State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar (2004(5) SCC 568
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.