2024:BHC-OS:18434 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION (LODG.) NO. 31055 OF 2024 IN APPEAL NO. 597 OF 2016 IN SUIT NO. 2295 OF 2002 Digitally signed by SHRADDHA SHRADDHA KAMLESH Siti Networks Ltd. ]

KAMLESH TALEKAR TALEKAR Date: (formerly known as Siticable Network Ltd.) ]

2024.11.13

18:27:59 +0530 through Resolution Professional Rohit ]

Ramesh Mehra ]… Applicant In the matter between :

Siti Networks Ltd. ]

(formerly known as Siticable Network Ltd.) ]...Appellant through Resolution Professional Rohit ] (Orig.

Ramesh Mehra Defendant)

Versus Rajiv Suri, Adult, Indian Inhabitant ] carrying on his business in the name ]

and style of M/s. Ambika Chitra as a ]…Respondent Proprietor thereof having his office at 15, ](Orig. Plaintiff )

Golf Links, Khar, Mumbai – 400 052.

Mr. Saurabh Bachhawat a/w. Mitesh Shah, Nishant Sogani, Rohan Gajaria, Ishaan Wakhloo, for Applicant.

Mr. Ajit Anekar a/w. Mr. Siddhant Sawhrey i/b Auris Legal, for Respondent.

CORAM : B.P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.

Reserved on : October 18, 2024 Judgement : ( P er, Somasekhar Sundaresan J. )

1. This is an Application filed by the Appellant not only seeking to withdraw Appeal No. 597 of 2016 but also seeking permission to withdraw the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- that had been deposited in this Court pursuant to an interim order, along with accrued earnings thereon. For the reasons set out in this judgement, we have allowed such withdrawal of the Appeal, and of the deposited amounts along with earnings.

Factual Matrix:

2. The Applicant-Appellant is a “corporate debtor”¹ undergoing a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) since February 22, 2023. This Application has been filed at the behest of the Resolution Professional who is now in charge of running the affairs of the Applicant-Appellant under the oversight of the Committee of Creditors appointed under the IBC.

3. A quick overview of the following facts underlying the Appeal would be in order:-

1 Defined in Section 3(8) of the IBC as a corporate person who owes a debt to any person

a) Suit No. 2295 of 2002 was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by a judgment dated June 13, 2016 (“Impugned Judgment”), with a direction to the Appellant to pay to the Respondent, a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- by way of damages along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, from the date of institution of the suit until the date of realization;

b) In Appeal No. 597 of 2016, challenging the Impugned Judgement, an interim order dated February 15, 2016 came to be passed, the operative part of which reads as follows :

2. Appellants shall deposit Rs. 20 lakhs in this Court and the balance amount shall be secured by giving security to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary & Senior Master.

[Emphasis Supplied]

c) To cut a long story short, the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- was deposited in cash with this Court on April 2, 2016. For the balance amount, bank guarantee was issued by IDBI Bank on April 6, 2016. The bank guarantee was extended from time to time. Owing to disputes between the Appellant and a consortium of nationalised banks, the Appellant sought leave of this Court to replace the bank guarantee with a guarantee issued by either ICICI Bank or HDFC Bank. A Division Bench of this Court on January 3, 2020, refused to permit the bank guarantee to be substituted by either of the aforesaid banks, and insisted that the bank guarantee should only be from a nationalised bank, failing which the decretal amount along with interest should be deposited with the Registry on or before January 18, 2020. This refusal to permit substitution of a bank guarantee from a non-nationalised bank, led to Special Leave Petition No. 807 of 2020 being filed in the Supreme Court;

d) By an order dated January 17, 2020, the Supreme Court permitted the furnishing of a bank guarantee by either ICICI Bank or HDFC Bank within a period of two weeks