IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Tata Steel Bsl Limited – Appellant
Versus
Venus Recruiter Private Limited – Respondent
LPA 37 of 2021 and C.M. Nos. 2664 of 2021, 2665 of 2021 & 2666 of 2021 and LPA 43 of 2021 and C.M. Nos. 3196 of 2021 & 3198 of 2021
Decided On : 13-01-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals filed concerning the cirp process. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. key questions regarding continuation of avoidance applications. (Para 3) |
| 3. court’s analysis of maintainability of writ petitions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. rp's authority ends post cirp conclusion. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. need for timelines in determining avoidance applications. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. examining reliance on a specific ibc report. (Para 13) |
| 7. arguments from tata steel regarding efficacy of nclt. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. union of india’s stance on jurisdictional matters. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 9. concurrence of rp with tata steel and union. (Para 28) |
| 10. counterarguments from venus recruiters on jurisdiction. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 11. the overarching purpose of the ibc. (Para 36) |
| 12. nature and purpose of avoidable transactions. (Para 42 , 46) |
| 13. final observations on the handling of avoidance applications. (Para 74 , 79 , 90) |
JUDGMENT
1. The present Letters Patent Appeals, being LPA No. 37 & 43 of 2021 have been filed by Tata Steel BSL Ltd. (hereafter, "TSBL") and the Union of India (hereafter, "UoI") (collectively, "Appellants") respectively, impugning the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.2022 ("Impugned Judgment") rendered in W.P.(C) No. 8705 of 2019: titled Venus Recruiters Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., wherein the Ld. Single Judge inter-alia held that an application filed under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") for avoidance of preferential transactions cannot survive beyond the conclusion of corporate insolvency resolution process (hereafter, "CIRP"). Accordingly, the Appellants have sought before this Court that the Impugned Judgment be set aside.
2. The facts of the case leading up to the filing of the present LPAs are set out hereinbelow:
a. Upon default in repayment of its credit facilities, State Bank of India ("SBI") filed a petition, being C.P. No. (IB)-201(PB)/2017 under Section 7 of the IBC before the NCLT seeking initiation of CIRP of M/s Bhushan Steel Limited.
b. On 26.07.2017, the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (hereafter, "NCLT") passed an order admitting Bhushan Steel Limited to CIRP. Mr. Vijay Kumar Iyer was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional. Thereafter, pursuant to the procedure laid down in the IBC, a public announcement was made inviting submission of claims by prospective resolution applicants and the Committee of Creditors was constituted.
c. On 24.08.2017, the CoC convened for the first time wherein it inter alia confirmed the appointment of Mr. Vijay Kumar Iyer as the Resolution Professional of Bhushan Steel Limited.
d. On 20.03.2018, the CoC approved the resolution plan proposed by Tata Steel Ltd.
e. On 28.03.2018, the RP filed the resolution plan proposed by Tata Steel before the NCLT for its approval in terms of Section 31 of the IBC.
f. On 03.04.2018, after filing of the resolution plan but before its approval, the Forensic Auditor of Bhushan Steel Ltd., Deloitte, submitted a Forensic Audit Report of the Corporate Debtor to the RP. Material on record discloses that several suspect transactions were entered into by the Corporate Debtor, namely, (i) Potential excess payment of lease rent to Vistrat Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.; (ii) Preferential credit to various international customer sand long outstanding receivables to entities such as Shree Steel Djibouti FZCO and Shree Global Steel FZE; (iii) Excess payments to Manpower companies/contractors; (iv) Uncontracted payment of interest on advance to Peak Minerals and Mining Private Ltd. for cancelled sale-and-lease back transactions. The transactions included a transaction entered into by the writ petitioner/Venus Recruiters Pvt. Ltd., the Respondent No.1 herein. On 03.10.2009, M/s Bhushan Steel Limited (now Tata Steel BSL Ltd.) entered into an agreement for supply of manpower with Venus Recruiters Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter, "Respondent No. 1"), which inter-alia contained a clause stipulating
Avoidance applications under the IBC can continue beyond the conclusion of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), as they primarily benefit creditors and the resolution professional retains ....
Resolution plan approved despite 99.92% haircut; unclaimed pre-CIRP claims extinguished upon section 31 approval; NCLT limits reliefs to IBC/Companies Act; new management shielded under section 32A; ....
The court emphasized compliance with mandatory timelines and statutory provisions during insolvency resolutions, finding NCLT failures in approving a plan, ruling it invalid and initiating liquidatio....
The court ruled that non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code rendered the Resolution Plan invalid, necessitating liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.
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.