SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Ori) 101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. MURALIDHAR, A.K. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 20286 of 2020
Decided On : 10-12-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. A. Vasist, Mr. S.K. Acharya.
For the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Muduli.

Point of Law: All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective resolution applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2017 - Sections 5 (21), 7 and 31 - Orissa Minerals (Prevention of theft, Smuggling and Illegal Mining and Regulation of Possession, Storage, Trading and Transportation) Rules, 2007 - Rule 8(1) - Issue of mining dues clearance certificate - Trading licence - Resolution Plan - Seeking direction to Mining Officer (Opposite Party No. 3) to renew its trading licence in terms of Rules, 2007 - Alleged outstanding dues owed by FACOR to Opposite Parties - It is not disputed by State that aforementioned demand pertains to period prior to “plan effective date” of ARP. As pointed out in rejoinder affidavit, ARP also talks about “government dues” which fall within the definition of “operational debt” as indicated in Section 5 - Prayer is for setting aside an order passed by Directorate of Mines rejecting FACOR’s representation for waiving demand raised against it by virtue of Resolution Plan approved by National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by its order - A consequential direction sought is to Opposite Parties to refund the imposed amount paid by Petitioner under protest or adjust it against the dues payable by the Petitioner to the Opposite Parties.

Finding of the Court:

After the approval of the resolution plan, no surprise claims should be flung on the successful resolution applicant.” Further, the resolution Applicant “should start with fresh slate on the basis of the resolution plan approved - Section 31 of the IBC, the ARP is binding on all creditors including Central Government and the State Government. Since all of the impugned demands raised against FACOR pertain to period prior to the Plan Effective date i.e. 31st January, 2020, all such demands stand automatically extinguished in terms of the ARP - Direction is issued to the Opposite Parties to refund the amounts paid by the Petitioner under protest for the purpose of issuance of the MDCC and renewal of the trading licence.

Result: Writ Petition is disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

Introduction

1. Seeking a direction to the Director of Mines, Government of Odisha (Opposite Party No. 2) to issue it a mining dues clearance certificate (MDCC) and a direction to the Mining Officer at Baripada (Opposite Party No. 3) to renew its trading licence in terms of the Orissa Minerals (Prevention of theft, Smuggling and Illegal Mining and Regulation of Possession, Storage, Trading and Transportation) Rules, 2007 (Mining Rules), the Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited (FACOR) has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The further prayer is for setting aside an order dated 8th September, 2020 passed by the Directorate of Mines rejecting FACOR’s representation for waiving the demand raised against it by virtue of the Resolution Plan approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by its order dated 30th January, 2020. A consequential direction sought is to the Opposite Parties to refund the imposed sum of Rs. 12,02,28,202/- paid by the Petitioner under protest or adjust it against the dues payable by the Petitioner to the Opposite Parties.

2. Initially, when the matter was heard on 24th August, 2020 the Court passed the following order:

    “Heard Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri. S.K. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties by Video Conferencing mode.

    Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Sections 5(21), 30, 31 and 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Director of Mines would be obliged in law to issue Mining Dues Clearance Certificate (MDCC) to the petitioner by taking the earlier dues as ‘Nil’ considering that the resolution plan has been approved by the NCLT. Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government submits that the petitioner ought to first approach the Director of Mines-opposite party No. 2 and press for disposal of his application for issuance of Mining Dues Clearance Certificate (MDCC). The petitioner may for that purpose appear before the Director, physically or by virtual mode, on the date that may be fixed by this Court and agitate all his arguments before him.

    In view of the above submissions, we require the petitioner to appear before the opposite party No. 2-Director of Mines, on 03.09.2020 at 11.00 A.M. by virtual mode for issuance of MDCC. On appearance of the petitioner, the Director of Mines will do well to dispose of the application of the petitioner by a speaking order.

    The matter to come up on 09.09.2020.

    Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for the reason of non-renewal of trade license.”

3. It is in compliance with the above order that the aforementioned order dated 8th September, 2020 was passed by the Director of Mines, Odisha. This led later to FACOR being permitted to amend the writ petition by an order dated 15th September, 2020 of this Court. The interim order passed initially on 24th August, 2020 has continued throughout.

4. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the present petition, there have been developments that resulted in a second amendment to the petition. FACOR paid amounts under protest and has been issued the MDCC and its trading licence has also been renewed. Thus, the prayer in the petition has been limited to seeking either refund or adjustment of the excess amount paid by FACOR in the sum of Rs. 12,02,28,202/- .

Background facts

5. The background facts of the case are that FACOR is engaged in the business processing, end use and sell of various minerals and residuals within Orissa. FACOR is required to obtain a trading license from the Opposite Party No. 3 in terms of Rules 4 to 7 of the Mining Rules. On 26th May, 2015 FACOR in law applied to Opposite Party No. 3 for grant of trading license which is then issued to it with a validity period from 25th August, 2015 to 24th Aug

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top