Mr. Vijay Kumar Garg vs Power Grid Corporation of India Limited
CA (AT) (Ins) 260 of 2023
Facts:
1.Appellant / Petitioner’, has preferred the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 260 of 2023, as an Aggrieved Person’, in respect of the impugned order’, dated 15.06.2023 in IA No. 1219 / 2020 in CP (IB) No. 529 / 7 / HDB / 2018 (Filed by the Appellant / Petitioner’, under Section 60 (5) read with Section 14 of the I & B Code, 2016 and Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016), passed by the Adjudicating Authority’ (National Company Law Tribunal’, Hyderabad Bench – I), in dismissing’, the said Petition’, without costs.
Issue: Whether the order passed is correct ?
Arguments:
Appellant:
1.Counsel submitted that the Adjudicating Authority’ / Tribunal’, should have appreciated that the 1st Respondent, never proceeded to implement its part of the obligation, for Construction of Transmission Lines’, as agreed, under the Transmission Agreement’, dated 31.03.2016, as the Bidding Process’, for the Construction of the Transmission Lines’, had neither commissioned nor the 1st Respondent, had made any `Capital Investment’ for the same.
2.Counsel submitted that Tribunal’, should have appreciated the fact that the finding(s) of meetings of National Committee on Transmission’, clearly indicates that the implementation of theInter State Transmission System’, strengthening in Chhatarpur area in Madhya Pradesh which was taken as a part of the Transmission Scheme Connectivity System’ for Corporate Debtor’, was put on hold, since the date of execution of the Transmission Agreement’ asLITL’, who was the EPC Contractor’ of theCorporate Debtor’, was facing `Financial’ issues.
3.Counsel for the Appellant, takes a stand that the 1st Respondent, had encashed Part of the Bank Guarantees’, to the tune of Rs.29 Crores and enriched itself, at the cost of theCorporate Debtor’, which is an `ex-facie illegal and unreasonable’ one. Counsel for the Appellant, comes out with a plea that the Bank Guarantee’, was issued on behalf of theCorporate Debtor’, to compensate for the damages, sustained by PGCIL’ forLoss’, arising out of Non-performance of Obligation’, by theCorporate Debtor. In fact, in the absence of `any Claim’, for the loss, the question of damages, does not arise.
4.Counsel for the Appellant, points out that the 1st Respondent, had never proceeded to implement its Part’ of the Obligation’ of Construction of Transmission Lines’, as agreed under the Transmission Agreement’, as the Bidding Process’ for the Construction of the Transmission Lines’, was never done and was kept in abeyance, as early as October 2017, when theLITL’, who was Promoter’, and EPC Contractor’ of the Corporate Debtor’, was admitted under Section 7 of theCode’, and even request for Qualification’, was not published for the Construction of Transmission Line’, by the 1st Respondent’, and these were not taken into account by the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal’, at the time of passing of the `impugned order.
Decision:
Rationale:
1.Hon’ble NCLAT noted that it appears that the 1st Respondent / Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, because of the Adverse Progress of the Generation Project of the Corporate Debtor’, had taken an appropriate action’, as per Regulations of the Central Commission’, and hence, according to the 1st Respondent / Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, no fault can be found fault with it, in Invoking’ the `Bank Guarantee.
2.Coming to the aspect of Section 14 of the I & B Code, 2016, this Tribunal’, points out that Section 14 of theCode’, is not prohibiting actions against the Corporate Debtor’s Guarantors’, and indeed, the ambit of Moratorium’, is confined, only to the `Assets of the Corporate Debtor’.
Order Copy:
