NCLT JUDGEMENT ON RULE 4 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY (APPLICATION TO ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY) RULES, 2016, RULE 11 OF THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL RULES, 2016, SECTION 7, 9, 14, 19, 29, 29(A), 30, 30(1), 30(2), 30(2)(B), 30(2)(D), 30(2)(E), 30(2)(F), 30(6), 31, 31(1), 31(2), 31(3), 31(4), 43, 45, 53, 53(1), 60(5), 60(5)(C), 60(6), 74(3), 238 SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT, SECTION 13(2) OF THE INTEREST ACT, 2002, SECTION 65(A), 65(A)(3) OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882, REGULATION 42, 44 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA (LIQUIDATION PROCESS) REGULATIONS, 2016 AND REGULATION 35(A), 36, 36(B), 38, 39, 39(4) OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA (INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS FOR CORPORATE PERSONS) REGULATIONS, 2016

 

NAME		MOBILE NO.	E-MAIL I’D
RANJEET KUMAR		8383098478, 9667769795	rk@courtkutchehry.com
JAI THAKUR		8130703334, 9355723300	jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com
RAJEEV RANJAN		9334553249	rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com
ASHOK MISHRA		9718327746	sales@courtkutchehry.com
RAVI KUMAR			ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com

Corporation Bank And Ors Vs. Amtek Auto Limited And Ors, (2020) 07 NCLT CK 0075

NCLT dismissed the application filed by the applicant for modifications as may be considered necessary by the Resolution Applicants in the Resolution Plan. While dismissing the application NCLT held that Clause 2.5.2 of the Resolution Plan dated 17.01.2020 read with addendum dated 07.02.2020 clearly shows that the "execution of a long term lease (subsisting for 20 years or more) for the ACE Complex land with acceptable terms" is not a condition precedent for approval of the plan, but the same is an "effective date condition precedent. The requirement of "confirmation of the validity and subsistence of the lease arrangement by way of prior written consent of Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. acting as a security trustee on behalf of KKR India Financial Service Limited and L&T Finance Limited in a form and substance acceptable to the resolution applicants" and other requirements mentioned under the definition 'Acceptable Terms' becomes redundant and infructuous since Gateway has already executed registered lease deed for 20 years even without the prior written consent from the Applicant and even before the Committee of Creditors approved the Resolution Plan. Since, all the counsels are ad-idem that this adjudicating authority while exercising its jurisdiction under the provisions of Code, cannot decide the validity of a lease deed, we are of the considered view that there is no necessity for us to go and examine the various contentions of all the parties with regard to the said issue. Further, for the same reason i.e. execution of the registered lease deed even prior to the approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors, we need not go into the issue whether execution of the instant lease deed was a to be understood as a pre-condition for approval of the resolution plan, though the Plan stated otherwise. In this view of this matter, and for the aforesaid reasons and also in view of our observations at Paragraphs Nos. 13(a) (i) and 18 of IA No.225/2020, there is no need to discuss the extensive arguments advanced and judgments relied on by both the sides, on the issues that whether the lease deed dated 28.01.2020, is valid or whether this Adjudicating Authority can compel the applicant to act in a particular manner in respect of the ACE Complex Land property on which it is claiming certain mortgage rights or whether granting of prayers in Section 9 of the Resolution Plan, along with Addendum, would prejudice the rights of the Applicant etc. Accordingly, and in the circumstances and for the reasons mentioned above, the instant IA is dismissed.