The court ruled on the admissibility of insolvency claims, emphasizing that individual settlements should not infringe upon stakeholders' collective rights and must align with statutory regulations.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Oral)

16.05.2024: This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing CA (AT) (Ins) No. 478 of 2023 (herein after referred to as the first appeal) and CA (AT) (Ins) No. 711 of 2023 (herein after referred to as the second appeal), filed against the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in CP (IB) No. 1089/MB- IV/2022 dated 30.03.2023 and CP (IB) No. 439(MB)/2022 dated 10.04.2023.

2. In so far as the first appeal is concerned, it is filed by the Suspended Director of Ashapura Options Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) to challenge the admission of an application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short ‘Code’) by Omkara Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (Financial Creditor) for the resolution of an amount of Rs. 65,30,77,490/-.

3. While admitting the petition filed by the Omkara Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (Financial Creditor), the Tribunal declared moratorium and appointed Mr. Bijendra Kumar Jha, as the IRP. The first appeal was filed on 15.04.2023 which came up for preliminary hearing on 18.04.2023 in which the following order was passed.

“Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that after issuance of notice by the Adjudicating Authority to the Corporate Debtor, there has been series of correspondence between the Corporate Debtor and the Financial Creditor for settlement and an OTS proposal was forwarded to the Financial Creditor, which was entertained and the Financial Creditor took cognizance of the OTS proposal and asked for certain information and in none of the correspondence, any information about filing of section 7 application or proceeding before NCLT was intimated. It is submitted that due to the aforesaid reason the Appellant could not appear and file reply. It is submitted that the OTS proposal has neither been accepted nor been rejected by the Financial Creditor and the Appellant was awaiting the outcome of the OTS proposal. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that two other Section 7 proceedings against the Corporate Debtor have also been filed and are pending. Submission needs Scrutiny.

Issue notice. Requisites alongwith process fee be filed within three days.

Respondents may filed reply within three weeks. Rejoinder be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List this Appeal on 29.05.2023.

In the meantime, in pursuance of the impugned order if CoC has not been constituted, the same shall not be constituted till the next date”.

4. The CoC was not constituted by that time and it was ordered that it shall not be constituted and the order dated 18.04.2023 is still operative.

5. The IRP, soon after his appointment, invited claims pursuant to which he received claims from five secured financial creditors and nine unsecured financial creditors.

6. The subject matter of the second appeal is that an application was filed by M/s Nippon Life India AIF Management Ltd., Nippon Life India Asset Management Ltd. and Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd.(FCs) Out of the aforesaid three, the first two are the financial creditors who had filed the application under Section 7 of the Code bearing CP (IB) No. 439(MB)/2022 before the NCLT, Mumbai against Ashapura Options Pvt. Ltd. (CD).

7. Since, the CP (IB) No. 1089/NCLT/MB/C-IV/2022 was admitted on 30.03.2023, therefore, CP (IB)-439 (MB)/2022 filed by the aforesaid financial creditors was dismissed by the Ld. Tribunal on 10.04.2023 with the following order:

“Mr. Malhar Zatakia, Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Aman Kacheria, Counsel appearing for the Corporate Debtor/Respondent are present through virtual hearing.

Counsel appearing for the Petitioner brought to the notice of this Bench that the Corporate Debto