Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AT CHENNAI
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
In the matter of :
IA No. 696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 325 of 2022
Page 1 of 15
M/s. Regen Infrastructure and
Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Resolution Professional
Ms. Renuka Devi Rangaswamy,
Sivanandam, 1st Floor, New No.1,
Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar,
Chennai - 600030 ... 4th Respondent / 3rd Respondent
Present:
For Petitioner / : Mr. E. Om Prakash, Senior Advocate
Appellant For Mr. V.V. Sivakumar & Mr. Chetan Sagar,
Advocates
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
IA No. 696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 325 of 2022
Page 2 of 15
Bankruptcy Act, 1993’, as well as, a ‘Secured Creditor’, coming within
the meaning of Section 2 (1) (zd) (iii) of the ‘SARFAESI Act, 2002’.
that the `L & T Investments Limited’ (“the Original Lender”), along with
80 Crores.
the ‘Notice’ of this ‘Tribunal’, that, the ‘Facility’/ ‘OCDs’, are secured,
IA No. 696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 325 of 2022
Page 3 of 15
12.03.2021 and as visualised, under `Section 5 (1) (b) of the SARFAESI
ACT, 2002’.
Period’, mentioned under Section 46 (1) (i) and /or Section 46 (1) (ii) and
IA No. 696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 325 of 2022
Page 4 of 15
7. Expatiating his submission, the Learned Counsel for the
the ‘Other Lenders’, and are entitled to, enforce the ‘Security Interest’,
30/05/2020, is that the ‘Lenders’ of the `1st Respondent’, will hold the
fact, the ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Appellant’, had lost the means, to enforce its
IA No. 696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 325 of 2022
Page 5 of 15
`Security Interest’, for recovery of its `Outstanding Dues’, aggregating in
the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 325 of 2022, before this
11. The Learned Counsel for the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’, relies on the
1970 (2) SCC Page 484 at Spl Page 489, wherein, at Paragraphs 6 and 7,
it is observed as under:
IA No. 696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 325 of 2022
Page 6 of 15
acceptance. The observations often conflict since they were made
in different contexts and involved the special standing of the party
claiming the right of appeal. Yet these definitions are not entirely
without value for they disclose a certain unanimity on the essential
features of this phrase, even in the diversity of the contexts. The
font and origo of the discussion is the well-known definition of the
phrase by James L.J. In Re Sidebotham Ex p. Sidebotham2. It was
observed that the words `person aggrieved' in Section 71 of the
Bankruptcy Act of 1869 meant: "
12. The Learned Counsel for the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’ , cites the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in `Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of
U.P. & Another’, reported in 1995 2 SCC, Page No. 689 at Spl Pg: 692,
IA No. 696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 325 of 2022
Page 7 of 15
compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector /
LAO.
under:
IA No. 696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 325 of 2022
Page 8 of 15
or associate are forfeited on the ground that smugglers or foreign
exchange manipulators were holding the said properties in their
names or that such properties are legally acquired, then to that
extent, for challenging the said finding, the relative or associate
can be held to be person aggrieved by the order of the competent
authority. But, a relative or associate cannot be considered to be
aggrieved if the properties belonging to the smuggler or foreign
exchange manipulator are forfeited under the Act.’’
IA No. 696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 325 of 2022
Page 9 of 15
`Petitioner / Appellant’, to prefer the instant ‘Appeal’, before this
`Tribunal’.
16. The Learned Counsel for the ‘1st Respondent’, points out that there
Stakeholders’.
17. The Learned Counsel for the ‘1st Respondent’, brings it to the
‘Appeal’, the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 325 of 2022, filed by
18. The Learned Counsel for the ‘1st Respondent’/ ‘Petitioner’, takes a
prime plea that the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 325 of
IA No. 696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 325 of 2022
Page 10 of 15
19. At this Juncture, the Learned Counsel for the ‘1st Respondent’/
20. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent, contends that the
has ‘No Locus’, to assail the said ‘Plan’, of the ‘Corporate Insolvency
21. The Learned Counsel for the ‘1st Respondent’/ ‘Petitioner’ points
out, that as the ‘Transaction of Sale of Assets’, which was covered by the
‘Creditors’, even apart from the fact, that the `present Transactions’, are
also `Undervalued’.
Assessment:
IA No. 696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 325 of 2022
Page 11 of 15
IA(IBC)/400(CHE)/2021 and that the ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Appellant’, has filed
the instant ‘Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 325 of 2022’, as an
‘Aggrieved Person’, yet this ‘Tribunal’, is of the earnest opinion that the
Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 325 of 2022’, seeking ‘Leave’, to
prefer the instant ‘Appeal’, before this ‘Tribunal’, cannot be sought for,
this `Tribunal’.`
23. Most importantly, one cannot remain in oblivion to the candid fact,
to put forward any case, other than that of ‘RISPL’, in the instant
‘Appeal’.
IA No. 696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 325 of 2022
Page 12 of 15
24. It must be borne in mind, that when ‘RISPL’, itself, had no
the ‘Security’, created by ‘RISPL’, will not arise. In any event, the
Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench – II, Chennai’, does not take
any ‘Rights’, having been vested on the same, to and in favour of the
conclusion, that the IA No. 696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.)
IA No. 696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 325 of 2022
Page 13 of 15
`Leave’ to prefer the instant `Appeal’), is `Ex facie’, not `maintainable’,
and it fails.
Conclusion:
In fine, the IA No. 696 of 2022 (`Praying for Leave’, to prefer the
instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 325 of 2022), filed by the
I.A. No. 1107 / 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 325 of 2022:
preferred I.A. No. 1107 / 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 325 of
its position, is like that of the position of the `1st Respondent / Appellant’,
itself `Impleaded’, in the present Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 325 of
In lieu of the fact, that this `Tribunal’, has dismissed the IA No.
696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 325 of 2022, preferred
IA No. 696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 325 of 2022
Page 14 of 15
by the `Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, Mumbai (by
passing a detailed order), and hence, the I.A. No. 1107 / 2022 in Comp.
App (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 325 of 2022 (filed by the `Proposed Party’ /
In view of the fact that IA No. 696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT)
(CH) (Ins) No. 325 of 2022 (seeking `Leave’, to prefer an ‘Appeal’), filed
(AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 325 of 2022, is not `entertained’, and the same is
[Justice M. Venugopal]
Member (Judicial)
[Shreesha Merla]
Member (Technical)
27/04/2023
SR / TM
IA No. 696 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 325 of 2022
Page 15 of 15