ASHOK G. RAJANI Versus BEACON TRUSTEESHIP LTD. & ORS

ASHOK G. RAJANI Versus BEACON TRUSTEESHIP LTD. & ORS

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4911 OF 2021

ASHOK G. RAJANI ....Appellant (s)

Versus

BEACON TRUSTEESHIP LTD. & ORS. .…Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T

Indira Banerjee, J.

This Appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016 (IBC) is against an interim order dated 18th August 2021

passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT),

Principal Bench at New Delhi in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.

598 of 2021, filed by the Appellant, whereby the NCLAT issued notice

of the Appeal, but did not restrain the Interim Resolution Professional

(IRP) from proceeding with Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

(CIRP) of M/s Seya Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as

“Corporate Debtor”). The NCLAT, however, restrained the IRP from

1

constituting a Committee of Creditors (CoC) till the next date of

hearing. In the meanwhile, the Appellant and the Respondents were

given the opportunity to settle their disputes before the Adjudicating

Authority (NCLT) in terms of Section 12A of the IBC read with Rule 11 of

the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (NCLT Rules). The

appeal was directed to be listed for hearing on 13th September 2021.

2. The Appellant is an erstwhile Director of Respondent No. 4, that

is the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor, a company

incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 has been carrying on

business, inter alia, of manufacture of benzene based Speciality

Chemicals since 1990. It is stated that the Corporate Debtor had

invested about Rs.400 Crores in its existing manufacturing facilities

and had further invested about Rs.900 Crores in an integrated

Greenfield Mega Project for Speciality Chemicals.

3. According to the Appellant, the Corporate Debtor is the source of

livelihood for about 150 workmen, 40 unskilled workers and 75

employees on its payroll and is engaged with more than 200

Customers/Vendors. It is claimed that the Corporate Debtor has a net

worth of Rs. 972 Crores and fixed assets worth more than Rs.1500

Crores.

4. In order to expand its chemical manufacturing plant at Tarapur,

Palghar (Maharashtra), the Corporate Debtor raised capital and the

Respondent No.1 - M/s Beacon Trusteeship Limited (hereinafter

referred to as “Beacon Trusteeship”) committed to invest Rs. 100

2

Crores in the said integrated Greenfield Mega Project, in the form of

Rs.20 Crores, towards Compulsorily Convertible Preference Shares

(CCPS) and Rs. 80 Crores, by way of Non-Convertible Debentures

(NCDs). Thereafter the Appellant, the Corporate Debtor and

Respondent-Beacon Trusteeship executed a Debenture Trust Deed

(DTD), inter-alia, recording the terms and conditions of the issue of

said NCDs. The Respondent No. 1 was appointed, the Debenture

Trustee as recorded in the DTD. The DTD laid down the obligations of

the Corporate Debtor towards the NCDs.

5. On or about 11th March 2019, Beacon Trusteeship released a sum

of Rs.72,00,00,000/- (INR Seventy Two Crores) toward subscriptions of

360 Series A debentures and 360 Series B Debentures ("First tranche

Debentures"). The aforesaid amount was to be invested in capacity

expansion of the company and hence not available as cashflow. The

service of interest for the first tranche had to be met out of the second

tranche of Rs. 8 Crores to be invested by the Beacon Trusteeship which

would have created the cash flow for the same and the remaining

amount was to be invested for Capex investment. Beacon Trusteeship,

however, defaulted in making payment of the second tranche of Rs. 8

Crores.

6. In addition to the DTD dated 8th March 2019, the parties entered

into a Supplemental Deed dated 14th March 2019 revising certain

terms set out in DTD including the timelines and schedule for the

Interest Payment Dates.

3

7. On 31st May 2019, the Corporate Debtor sent an email to the

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, requesting payment of the second tranche of

Rs.8 Crores in terms of the DTD. The Corporate Debtor also issued

notice to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to make payment of second

tranche of Rs. 8 Crores.

8. On 12th September 2019, the Corporate Debtor took recourse to

Arbitration Proceedings against the other Respondents. Beacon

Trusteeship issued a notice to the Corporate Debtor regarding nonpayment of interest amount of Rs.2,18,95,890.41/-. Beacon Trusteeship

also issued an Enforcement Notice accelerating payment of the full

investment amount i.e. Rs.77,94,92,513/- as due on 17th October 2019

on account of non-payment of Rs.2,18,95,890.41/- being interest

coupon amount.

9. On 18th October 2019, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 invoked

Clause 6.1 of the share pledge agreement and transferred 26.60 lakh

shares worth Rs 91.78 Crores into the DEMAT Account(s) of the

Respondents.

10. Between 18th-20th October 2019, the Corporate Debtor initiated

Arbitration Proceedings before the High Court of Bombay. While the

Arbitral Proceedings, to which the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had

themselves agreed and consented to, were pending, they filed an

application under Section 7 of the IBC before the National Company

Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench.

4

11. On 15th January 2020, the Corporate Debtor filed its statement

of claim seeking an award aggregating to Rs.848,75,30,000/- for losses

and damages suffered by it.

12. On 26th February 2020, the Respondents filed statement of

defence and counter claim seeking an award for payment of its claim

amounting to Rs.73,56,59,238/-.

13. On 24th March 2021, the Arbitrator passed an interim award in

favour of Beacon Trusteeship and other Respondents and directed the

Corporate Debtor to make payment of Rs.72,06,99,244/- along with

interest.

14. On 21st April 2021, being aggrieved by the order of the

Arbitrator, the Appellant and Corporate Debtor preferred an arbitration

petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

before the High Court of Bombay which is still pending.

15. The NCLT, Mumbai Bench heard the matter and reserved its

order on 13th May 2021. On 1st July 2021, the Corporate Debtor and

the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed a joint application before the NCLT,

Mumbai Bench requesting to defer the order as the parties were in the

process of arriving at a settlement and sought time till 10th July 2021.

16. On 12th July 2021, the Corporate Debtor and the Respondents

Nos. 1 to 3 again filed a joint application before the NCLT, Mumbai

Bench seeking further time till 23rd July 2021 for arriving at a

settlement. Thereafter, on 26th July 2021, they again sought time for

5

settlement till 12th August 2021.

17. On 3rd August 2021, the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, rejected the

request of the parties for further deferment of orders for arriving at a

settlement and admitted and allowed the application under Section 7

of the IBC preferred by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 against Corporate

Debtor.

18. Being aggrieved by the order dated 3rd August 2021 passed by

the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, admitting and allowing application for

initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, the Appellant who is

Director of the Corporate Debtor filed an appeal being Company

Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 598 of 2022 in the NCLAT, New Delhi.

19. On 8th August 2021, the parties had amicably settled their

disputes and entered into a formal settlement, a copy of which is

annexed to the paper book as annexure A-25.

20. On 10th August 2021, the NCLAT considering the settlement

arrived at between the parties, granted interim stay of publication

under Section 13 of the IBC and further gave liberty to the parties to

adopt procedure under Section 12A of IBC.

21. On 12th August 2021, the parties with the consent of the IRP filed

an application under Section 12A of the IBC before the NCLT, Mumbai.

However, the same has not been listed till date.

6

22. On 18th August 2021, the NCLAT stayed the formation of CoC, but

declined to exercise its power under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules to take

on record the settlement and dispose of the matter. Further, the

NCLAT permitted the IRP to issue publication and also handover all

assets and proceed with the CIRP even though the matter had been

settled between the parties. Being dissatisfied by the order dated 18th

August 2021 of the NCLAT, the Appellant has preferred the present

Civil Appeal.

23. Section 12A of the IBC enables the Adjudicating Authority to

allow the withdrawal of an application admitted under Section 7 or

Section 9 or Section 10, on an application made by the applicant with

the approval of 90% voting shares of the Committee of Creditors in

such a manner as may be specified.

24. Section 12A of the IBC clearly permits withdrawal of an

application under Section 7 of the IBC that has been admitted on an

application made by the applicant. The question of approval of the

Committee of Creditors by the requisite percentage of votes, can only

arise after the Committee of Creditors is constituted. Before the

Committee of Creditors is constituted, there is, in our view, no bar to

withdrawal by the applicant of an application admitted under Section 7

of the IBC.

25. In exercise of power conferred by Section 469 of the Companies

Act, 2013, the Central Government has made the National Company

Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, hereinafter, referred to as the “NCLT Rules”.

7

Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules reads as :-

“11. Inherent Powers.- Nothing in these rules shall be

deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of

the Tribunal to make such orders as may be necessary for

meeting the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the

process of the Tribunal.”

26. As stated in its statement of objects and reasons, the object of

the IBC is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons,

partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for

maximisation of value of assets of such persons, to promote

entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balance of interests of all

stakeholders including alteration in the order of priority of payment of

Government dues and to establish an Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Board of India and matters connected therewith or thereto.

27. The statement says that an effective legal framework for timely

resolution of insolvency and bankruptcy would support development of

credit markets, encourage entrepreneurship, improve business and

facilitate more investments leading to higher economic growth and

development.

28. A reading of the statement of objects and reasons with the

statutory Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules enables the NCLT to pass orders for

the ends of justice including order permitting an applicant for CIRP to

withdraw its application and to enable a corporate body to carry on

business with ease, free of any impediment.

8

29. Considering the investments made by the Corporate Debtor and

considering the number of people dependant on the Corporate Debtor

for their survival and livelihood, there is no reason why the applicant

for the CIRP, should not be allowed to withdraw its application once its

disputes have been settled.

30. The settlement cannot be stifled before the constitution of the

Committee of Creditors in anticipation of claims against the Corporate

Debtor from third persons. The withdrawal of an application for CIRP

by the applicant would not prevent any other financial creditor from

taking recourse to a proceeding under IBC. The urgency to abide by

the timelines for completion of the resolution process is not a reason to

stifle the settlement.

31. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

the Appellant drew our attention to an order dated 25th August 2021,

passed by a Bench of coordinate strength comprising S. Abdul Nazeer

and Krishna Murari, J.J. in Civil Appeal No. 4993 of 2021, the relevant

part whereof is extracted hereinbelow:

“(3) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not

in dispute that CoC has not been constituted so far. This

Court in Swiss Ribbons Private Limited and Anr. v. Union of

India and others- (2019) 4 SCC 17 has held that at any

stage, before a Committee of Creditors is constituted, a

party can approach National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)

directly and that the Tribunal may, in exercise of its inherent

powers under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, allow or disallow an

application for withdrawal or settlement. It was held thus:

82. It is clear that once the Code gets triggered by

admission of a creditor's petition under Sections 7 to

9, the proceeding that is before the adjudicating

9

authority, being a collective proceeding, is a

proceeding in rem. Being a proceeding in rem, it is

necessary that the body which is to oversee the

resolution process must be consulted before any

individual corporate debtor is allowed to settle its

claim. A question arises as to what is to happen

before a Committee of Creditors is constituted (as per

the timelines that are specified, a Committee of

Creditors can be appointed at any time within 30

days from the date of appointment of the interim

resolution professional). We make it clear that at any

stage where the Committee of Creditors is not yet

constituted, a party can approach NCLT directly,

which Tribunal may, in exercise of its inherent powers

under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016, allow or disallow

an application for withdrawal or settlement. This will

be decided after hearing all the parties concerned

and considering all relevant factors on the facts of

each case.”

 (emphasis supplied)

(4) In the instant case, as noticed earlier, the applicantrespondent no.1 had made an application before the

NCLT, Mumbai Bench, under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules for

withdrawal of company petition filed under Section 9 of

the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) on the

ground that the matter has been settled between the

Corporate debtor and the applicant-respondent no.1.

(5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

we are of the view that the applicant-respondent no.1 was

justified in filing the application under Rule 11 of the NCLT

Rules for withdrawal of the company petition on the

ground that the matter has been settled between the

parties.”

32. The application for settlement under Section 12A of the IBC is

pending before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). The NCLAT has

stayed the constitution of the Committee of Creditors. The order

impugned is only an interim order which does not call for interference.

In an appeal under Section 62 of the IBC, there is no question of law

10

which requires determination by this Court. The appeal is, accordingly,

dismissed. The NCLT is directed to take up the settlement application

and decide the same in the light of the observations made above.

…………………………………,J.

 [ INDIRA BANERJEE ]

…………………………………,J.

 [ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 22, 2022

11