NCLAT Delhi: Interveners Do Not Have The Right To Seek Relief For Themselves Before The Adjudicating Authority
Sachika Vij
1 April 2024 3:45 PM GMT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that the interveners do not have the right to seek relief for themselves before the Adjudicating Authority. Background Facts: On 07.02.2003, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority and Jaiprakash Associates Limited...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that the interveners do not have the right to seek relief for themselves before the Adjudicating Authority.
Background Facts:
On 07.02.2003, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority and Jaiprakash Associates Limited ('JAL') entered into a Concession Agreement with JAL being granted a concession to develop the expressway against the right to collect toll charges for a period of 36 years and the right to develop 6177 acres at actual compensation cost. Jaypee Infratech Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) was assigned all the rights and obligations under the Agreement.
The consortium of banks provided finances for the project. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') filed by IDBI Bank against the Corporate Debtor was revived by the Supreme Court. Later on, Resolution Plans submitted by Suraksha Realty and NBCC were approved by the Committee of Creditors ('CoC') as well as NCLT New Delhi on 07.03.2023.
JAL and Manoj Gaur (Appellants) erstwhile Managing Director and personal guarantor of Corporate Debtor's loan have filed the appeals against NCLT New Delhi's Order approving the Resolution Plans in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.
NCLAT Verdict:
The NCLAT Delhi dismissed the appeals and held that the interveners do not have the right to seek relief for themselves before the Adjudicating Authority.
The Appellate Tribunal observed that interveners are expected to either support the challenged order or the appellant. The individuals who submit their claims to the Insolvency Resolution Professional and whose claims are documented have the complete right to approach the SRA or the Monitoring and Implementation Committee. They are entitled to pursue their entitlements according to the provisions outlined in the Resolution Plan.
Case Title: Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. vs. Jaypee Infratech Ltd. and Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 548 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2643, 3702 of 2023
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anupam Chaudhary, Mr. Sarvesh Mehra, Mr. Krishnan Aggarwal, Mr. Avinash Mathews, Advocates.
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Sumant Batra, Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Ms. Mehreen Garg, Advocates for IMC of JIL/R-1. Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Ms. Geetika Sharma, Ms. Eshna Kumar, Mr. Sagar Bansal, Ms. Varsha Himatsingka, Mr. Rajat Sinha, Advocates for SRA, R- 3 & 4. Mr. Tushar Jain, Mr. Vaibhav Chowdhary, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocates in IA 2643/2023. Mr. Parth Tandon and Mr. Harsh Sharma, Advocates for Applicant in I.A. 3218/2023. Mr. Amit K. Mishra, Mr. Akshat Hansaria, Advocates for Homebuyers/Intervenors. Mr. Vierat K. Anand, Ms. Srishty Kaul, Mr. Harish Nadda, Advocates.
