Case Law Details
Anand Varma Vs Piyush Periwal & Ors. (NCLAT Delhi)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the NCLAT allowed the appeal by expunging all adverse observations made against the Appellant in the impugned Order by observing that appearance for an entity being a separate company which has initiated separate proceeding under Section 7 against different Corporate Debtor and appearance of the Appellant in that proceeding in no manner can be said to be in breach of any Rules of Etiquette or can lead to any conflict of interest in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.
Facts: In present facts of the case, the Appellant has filed this Appeal for expunging the remarks made against the Appellant in the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Guwahati. The Appellant had appeared as an Advocate on behalf of the Respondent No.2, the Resolution Professional in C.P. (IB)/09/GB/2019. While allowing the Application I.A (IBC)/43/2021 filed by the Respondent No.1, certain observations have been made against the Appellant.
On an Application filed by Financial Creditor- ‘Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF)’ under Section 7, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor by order dated 26.08.2019. The Resolution Professional published Form-G dated 09.11.2019 inviting Expressions of Interest (EOIs). Due to non-receipt of Resolution Plan, Resolution Professional again published Form-G on 27.06.2020 inviting EOIs by 12.07.2020. The Respondent No.1, a member of Suspended Board of Directors and Respondent No.4 (‘PLBB Products Pvt. Ltd.’) have submitted their EOIs. On 27.07.2020, final list of PRAs was published by the Resolution Professional, including Respondent Nos. 1 and 4. A letter was issued by the Resolution Professional on 14.08.2020 addressed to Appellant, offering the Appellant to represent Resolution Professional. Committee of Creditors (CoC) on 07.09.2020 approved the engagement of the Appellant as counsel for the Resolution Professional and after 07.09.2020, Appellant started representing Resolution Professional. It was only Respondent No.4 who submitted Resolution Plan which came to be discussed by the CoC in its meeting dated 18.09.2020, 08.10.2020 & 06.11.2020. An Application under Section 7 of the IBC being CP(IB) No. 5/GB/202 1 was filed by ‘Damayanti Tea Industries’ through its authorised signatory by the Appellant as Advocate for ‘Damayanti Tea Industries’. On 10.02.2021, the Adjudicating Authority allowed IA No. 5/2021 filed by the Respondent No.1 to submit a Resolution Plan in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. On 06.08.2021, Respondent No.1 filed an I.A No. 43/2021 before the Adjudicating Authority alleging inter alia conflict of interest and collusion between Appellant, Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
The Adjudicating Authority heard I.A. No. 43/2021 and by order dated 08.04.2022 disposed of I.A and issued various directions. The Appellant aggrieved by the prejudicial observations made by the Adjudicating Authority against him has come up in this Appeal and as noted above, in the Appeal, the only prayer is to expunge the remarks made against the Appellant in the order dated 08.04.2022.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
