w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Hindustan Oil Exploration Company v/s Erstwhile Committee of Creditors Jekpl Pvt. Ltd. & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- OIL INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L11101AS1959GOI001148

Company & Directors' Information:- HINDUSTAN OIL EXPLORATION COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = L11100GJ1996PLC029880

Company & Directors' Information:- JEKPL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909UP1997FTC047891

Company & Directors' Information:- S R P OIL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U23209DL1996PTC303594

Company & Directors' Information:- S P OIL EXPLORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U11200MH2005PTC154716

Company & Directors' Information:- HINDUSTAN OIL EXPLORATION COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1983PLC030926

Company & Directors' Information:- M K S OIL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U23201DL2013PTC250459

Company & Directors' Information:- S M EXPLORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14299DL2021PTC385585

Company & Directors' Information:- OIL CORPORATION OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15133UP1952PTC002471

Company & Directors' Information:- O.I.L PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15400DL2013PTC255692

Company & Directors' Information:- P P OIL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15141MH1999PTC117925

Company & Directors' Information:- M & T EXPLORATION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U14220TG2010PTC070323

Company & Directors' Information:- B F OIL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15141DL1993PTC052160

Company & Directors' Information:- HINDUSTAN CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U74900KL1901PTC000424

Company & Directors' Information:- HINDUSTAN LTD. [Active] CIN = U99999MH1917PTC000472

Company & Directors' Information:- HINDUSTAN CORPORATION LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1949PLC007790

    Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 969 of 2020

    Decided On, 17 November 2020

    At, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BANSI LAL BHAT
    By, ACTING CHAIRPERSON
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE DR. ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA
    By, TECHNICAL MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Rohit Rajershi, Abhijeet Sinha, Ramaswamy Meyyappan, Advocates. For the Respondents: R2, Abhinav Vasisht, Sr. Advocate, Misha, Siddhant Kant, Charu Bansal, Saurav Panda, R3, Sujoy, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(Through Virtual Mode)1. Appellant is the ‘unsuccessful resolution applicant’ whose resolution plan was rejected by the committee of creditors. It has assailed impugned order dated 9th September, 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Allahabad Bench in I.A. No. 208/2020 in CA No. 188/2019 in CP No. (IB) 24/ALD/2017 by virtue whereof the Adjudicating Authority while declining to accede to the prayer for reversal of money to the successful resolution applicant in the event of dismissal order from the Hon’ble Apex Court, directed implementation of the approved resolution plan on or before the extended date i.e. 30th September, 2020. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the erstwhile committee of creditors of the corporate debtor, in connivance with the successful resolution applicant, accepted a re-negotiated fresh resolution plan and the application of the committee of creditors under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“I&B Code” for short) filed before the Adjudicating Authority was not maintainable and should not have been entertained by the Adjudicating Authority for the committee of creditors had become functus officio after approval of the resolution plan. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority had approved the resolution plan on 4.2.2020 and in terms of the approved resolution plan the successful resolution applicant had to bring in Rs. 123 Cr. for Resolution within 30 days of approval of the plan which expired on 5.3.2020. However, the successful resolution applicant did not implement the resolution plan and the erstwhile committee of creditors of the corporate debtor, in connivance with the successful resolution applicant, accepted a fresh resolution plan to the detriment of legal rights of the appellant whose resolution plan was rejected on the ground that he could not provide for lump sum time bound payment within 30 days of the approval of its resolution plan.2. After hearing Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Advocate for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has no locus to question the implementation of the approved resolution plan of the successful resolution applicant. Admittedly, appeal preferred against approval of the resolution plan of the successful resolution applicant stands dismissed by this Appellate Tribunal. Direction given in terms of the impugned order on the application filed under Section 60(5) of the ‘I&B Code’ to the successful resolution applicant follows as a necessary corollary to the dismissal of appeal filed against approval of resolution plan of the successful resolution applicant to implement the approved resolution plan on or before the extended date of 30th September, 2020. Once the appellant is out of the fray, it has neither locus to call in question any action of any of the stakeholders qua implementation of the approved resolution plan nor can it claim any prejudice on the pretext that any of the actions post approval of the resolution plan of successful resolution applicant in regard to its implementation has affected its prospects of being a successful resolution applicant. If the terms of the approved resolution plan of successful resolution applicant have been varied or time extended to facilitate its implementation and the creditors have not claimed any prejudice on that count and the committee of creditors comprising of the creditors as stakeholders has not objected to same rather been privy to it on account of hardship due to prevailing circumstances, the appellant cannot be permitted to cry foul. It is not a case of alleged material irregularity in the corporate insolvency resolution process which is in final stages with the approved resolution plan being under implementation. Outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic has slowed down the economic activity and operations have been adversely impacted. Viewed in that context some necessary changes in the agreed terms and extension of time for imp

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

lementation would not be uncalled for. Be that as it may, the appellant has no locus to maintain that the change in terms of the approved resolution plan in regard to extension of time for induction of upfront amount as also implementation of the resolution plan has jeopardized its legal rights qua consideration of its resolution plan which has been rejected.3. There being no merit in this appeal, same is dismissed in limine.Appeal dismissed.
O R