DAUPHIN CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED VS PARVEEN BANSAL
Company Appeal(AT)(Ins) – 971/ND/2023
Facts:
1.Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ (CIRP in short) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor-M/s Abloom Infotech Pvt. Ltd. on an Application under Section 7. In pursuance of the publication issued by the IRP, Claims were filed by DMI Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Chandgi Ram Real Estate Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
2.An IA was filed by the Appellant before the AA seeking Direction to the resolution professional to give documents and calculation based on which applicant admitted the claim of Financial Creditor and to place documents and calculation based on which applicant admitted the claim of Financial Creditor.
3.AA passed an Order dated 14.02.2023 observing that there are no provisions in the Code in which the shareholders can ask for such documents from Resolution Professional. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Adjudicating Authority directed the Resolution Professional to file an additional affidavit stating the claims admitted by the Resolution Professional with all the supporting documents and calculations within 7 days. An appeal was filed against the order which was dismissed.
4.An IA was filed by the Resolution Professional To direct the resolution professional to file an Additional Affidavit stating the claim of DMI Finance Private Limited admitted by the Resolution Professional with all the supporting documents and calculations, in a sealed cover envelope without e-filing to comply with the order dated 14.02.2023. IA was allowed by the AA.
5.Appeal is filed by the appellant against the above order?
Issue: Whether the order passed is correct ?
Arguments:
Appellant:
1.Counsel submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has committed error in allowing the Resolution Professional to file documents in a sealed cover. It is submitted that there is no provision in the Code and Regulation that documents can be kept confidential from the shareholders of the Corporate Debtor.
2.Counsel contended that only confidentiality that the Code provides is with respect to the information memorandum under Section 29(2) of the Code. It is submitted that claim of the Financial Creditor has been admitted for a higher amount. Shareholders asked for documents and calculations on which claims of Corporate Debtor has been admitted. Resolution Professional had contended confidentiality.
Respondent:
1.Counsel submitted that Appeal has become infructuous since the Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 01st August, 2023 has approved the Resolution Plan. After approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, issues sought to be raised by the Appellant needs no consideration.
Decision: Hon’ble NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
Rationale:
1.Hon’ble NCLAT noted that Appeal arises out of Insolvency Process under I&B Code and Regulations framed thereunder. It noted that reliance placed on the Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited V. Union of India & Ors where Hon’ble Supreme Court was examining the issue pertaining to Sealed Cover Procedure and public interest claims, as observed above the present is a case arising out of IBC Proceedings and for the reasons that Resolution Plan stood approved on 01st August, 2023, we see no necessity to dwell any further on the submission which has been advanced by Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
Order copy:
