Monday 26 February 2024

State bank of India Vs. Ramakant Gupta Liquidator .- In our view wisdom or right for change of liquidator is not available to SCC in the Liquidation process, recording the above we reject the present application as we hold no cognizant reason for replacement of the Liquidator are provided in the present application.

NCLT Ahmedabad-1 (2024.01.17) in State bank of India Vs. Ramakant Gupta Liquidator . IA/26 (AHM) 2024 in CP (IB) 559 of 2019 ] held that;

  • In our view wisdom or right for change of liquidator is not available to SCC in the Liquidation process, recording the above we reject the present application as we hold no cognizant reason for replacement of the Liquidator are provided in the present application. 

  • The applicant bank had stated only single reason to replace the present Liquidator that the Liquidator is not on the panel of the State Bank of India. In our view; it cannot be a valid and reasonable reason to change or to replace the Liquidator. 

 

Excerpts of the order;

# 1. The present application is filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, read with Rule 11 and 32 of National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 seeking the following reliefs: 

  • 1) Your Lordship may be pleased to allow the Present Application; 

  • 2) Your Lordship may be pleased to replace Mr. Ramakant Gupta by Mr. Sachin Bhattbhatt as Liquidator. 

  • 3) Your Lordship may be pleased to grant any other relief as may deem fit in the interest of justice. 


# 2. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

I. The Corporate Debtor, a company incorporated on June 17, 2011, and duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaging in Construction and Civil Engineering business. An application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was filed on 09.04.2019 by Applicant – (State Bank of India or bank) against Corporate Debtor i.e. M/s Sujyot Infrastructure Private Limited in Company Petition (IB) No. 559 of 2019 which was allowed and Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was commenced against the Corporate Debtor vide order dated 22.12.2021 of this Tribunal. 

II. It is submitted by the Counsel for Applicant that on 17.06.2022 an Interlocutory Application No. 558 of 2022 was filed by Resolution Professional (RP) of the Corporate Debtor for initiation of liquidation process of the corporate debtor. This Tribunal vide its order dated 30.10.2023 passed an order of initiation of liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor. It is pertinent to note that while passing the order of liquidation, this Tribunal as per IBBI Circular No. Liq-12011/214/2023-IBB1/840 dated 18/07/2023 appointed the present respondent- Mr. Ramakant Gupta as a Liquidator to carry out the liquidation process of Corporate Debtor.

III. It is stated that the present application has been preferred by the applicant for replacement of the liquidator appointed vide order dated 30.10.2023. 

IV. It was submitted that the Resolution ProfessionalMr. Parag Sheth was to be appointed as the "Liquidator". However, this Tribunal as per the Circular dated 18.07.2023 appointed the present respondent- Mr. Ramakant Gupta as "Liquidator". The applicant has now noticed that the present respondent is not empanelled with the applicant as a Liquidator and hence the applicant requested to replace the liquidator- Mr. Ramakant Gupta with Mr. Sachin Bhattbhatt who is empanelled with the applicant bank. 

V. The counsel for applicant submitted that such submission of the bank is not in any manner indicating that the bank is leveling any allegations or incompetency on part of the present liquidatorMr. Ramakant Gupta. 

VI. It is stated that such agenda for replacement of liquidator was discussed in the Second Meeting of Stakeholder consultation Committee dated 20.12.2023 whereby it was resolved to replace Mr. Ramakant Gupta the present respondent as liquidator and to appoint Mr. Sachin Bhattbhatt as a Liquidator in place of Mr. Ramakant Gupta hence this application. 

VII. It is stated that the proposed liquidator has also given written consent dated 21.12.2023 to act as a liquidator in the present matter. 


# 3. We have heard the Counsel for the Applicant and perused the documents on record. We have observed the following : 

a. The State Bank of India has preferred the present application on behalf of SCC for replacement of the present liquidator who is Respondent herein only with the reason that the present Liquidator is not on the panel of the State Bank of India. 

b. The SCC in its 2nd Meeting considered the said proposal and the relevant Resolution is provided hereinbelow: “RESOLVED THAT the members of the Stakeholders consultation committee hereby approve the replacement of present liquidator i.e., Mr. Ramakant Gupta having Registration no. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-02673/20222023/ 14105 with newly nominated liquidator i.e. Mr. Sachin Bhattbhatt having Registration no. IBBI/IPA-003/IPN000138/2017-2018/11514.” 

c. It is essential to emphasize that in accordance with the statutory mandate outlined in Regulation 31A of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, a mandatory Written Consent Form, as stipulated in Form AA of Schedule II, is a prerequisite for the proposed liquidator's appointment. In addition to the requisite 66% voting percentage to pass the resolution, this form must be submitted before the Adjudicating Authority for the purpose of replacing the liquidator. It is noteworthy that such written consent has been attached in the present application. 

d. Moreover, during its 2nd Meeting, the SCC had approved the agenda of replacement of the Liquidator with 100% voting without giving any reasons for the replacement of the Liquidator. 

e. The provisions provided for replacement of Resolution Professional are contained in Section 27 of the IBC, 2016 and are reproduced below: 

  • Section 27. Replacement of resolution professional by committee of creditors. 

  • (1) Where, at any time during the corporate insolvency resolution process, the committee of creditors is of the opinion that a resolution professional appointed under section 22 is required to be replaced; it may replace him with another resolution professional in the manner provided under this section. 

  • (2) The committee of creditors may, at a meeting, by a vote of sixty-six per cent. of voting shares, resolve to replace the resolution professional appointed under section 22 with another resolution professional, subject to a written consent from the proposed resolution professional in the specified form. 

  • (3) The committee of creditors shall forward the name of the insolvency professional proposed by them to the Adjudicating Authority. 

  • (4) The Adjudicating Authority shall forward the name of the proposed resolution professional to the Board for its confirmation and a resolution professional shall be appointed in the same manner as laid down in section 16. 

  • (5) where any disciplinary proceeding are pending against the proposed resolution professional under subsection (3), the resolution professional appointed under section 22 shall continue till the appointment of another professional under the section.” 


f. The IBBI (Liquidation) Regulation 31A. (11) specifically states that the Liquidator can be replaced by the SCC after recording the reasons in the minutes of the SCC. The relevant portion of the IBBI Liquidation Regulation are reproduced hereunder: 

  • “31A. (11) The consultation committee, after recording the reasons, may by a majority vote of not less sixty-six per cent., propose to replace the liquidator and shall file an application, after obtaining the written consent of the proposed liquidator in Form AA of the Schedule II, before the Adjudicating Authority for replacement of the liquidator

  • Provided that where a liquidator is proposed to be replaced, he shall- 

  • (a) continue to work till his replacement; and (b) be suitably remunerated for work performed till his replacement.” 

g. It is noticed that there exist a marked difference for change of Resolution Professional and change of Liquidator. During CIRP the COC has the wisdom to replace the RP if there is majority of more than 66% without assigning any specific reason for such replacement as such option is available as a matter of right. In the Liquidation process, the SCC has to record specific reason for replacement of the Liquidator. 

h. Nowhere in the instant application, the Applicant had recorded any reason, neither the applicant is leveling any allegations nor incompetency on part of the liquidator who is performing his duties in the manner it should be performed. The relevant portion of para 4 of the application is reproduced hereunder: 

  • “The applicant humbly submits that such submission of the applicant is not in any manner indicating that the applicant is levelling any allegations or incompetency on part of the liquidator. The applicant is submitting for replacement of the liquidator only because there is large money involved in the present matter and therefore with a commercial wisdom it is humbly submitted by the applicant that the liquidator i.e. the present respondent Mr. Ramkant Gupta be replaced by Mr. Sachin Bhattbhatt as a Liquidator.” 


# 4. In our view wisdom or right for change of liquidator is not available to SCC in the Liquidation process, recording the above we reject the present application as we hold no cognizant reason for replacement of the Liquidator are provided in the present application. The applicant bank had stated only single reason to replace the present Liquidator that the Liquidator is not on the panel of the State Bank of India. In our view; it cannot be a valid and reasonable reason to change or to replace the Liquidator. 


# 5. The Liquidator is directed to complete the liquidation process expeditiously as per law. 


# 6. Accordingly, with these observations the present application is dismissed and is disposed off. No order to cost. 

---------------------------------------------


Sunday 25 February 2024

Mr. Divyesh Desai Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organisation - It is trite law that PF contributions of the employer and employee which are payable to the employee by the PF department do not form part of liquidation estate and has to be paid to the PF department for onward remission to the concerned employees in priority of all other debt.

NCLT Mumbai-1 (2024.02.09) in Mr. Divyesh Desai Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organisation [I.A. 53 Of 2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 619/MB/2018 ] held that;

  • It is trite law that PF contributions of the employer and employee which are payable to the employee by the PF department do not form part of liquidation estate and has to be paid to the PF department for onward remission to the concerned employees in priority of all other debt

  • Accordingly, the Liquidator’s determination of the claim for a sum of Rs. 10,79,49,882/- being the amount of contribution to the Provident Fund included in the said demand of the Respondent is correct and that amount shall be considered falling outside the liquidation estate. 

  • The remaining claim of the applicant in so far as it pertains to claim of interest and damages or any other contribution not payable to the employees of the Corporate Debtor by such fund shall be regarded as operational debt due to the statutory authorities and considered accordingly in terms of Section 53 of the Code. 


Excerpts of the order;

# 1. This Application bearing IA No. 53 Of 2022, is filed by Mr. Divyesh Desai, Liquidator of Nicomet Industries Limited (Applicant), seeking 

1.1. This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an order taking on record the claim in the manner as adjudicated by the Applicant and as more particularly described in the present application; 

1.2. This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an order permitting the modification of list of stakeholders filed with this Hon'ble Tribunal, in light of the admission of the claim of the Respondent as verified by the Applicant in the manner as explained in the present application: 

1.3. Pass any order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 


# 2. That vide order dated December 14, 2018 this Tribunal appointed Mr. Devang Sampat as the Resolution Professional for carrying out the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor. Thereafter, this Tribunal by way of order dated December 16, 2020 initiated the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor and Mr. Divyesh Desai (the "Applicant/Liquidator") was appointed as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor. Thereafter, on December 24, 2020, The Applicant made a public announcement calling upon stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor to submit or update their claims latest by or before January 15, 2021. 

2.1. Pursuant to public announcement, the Employees Provident Fund Organisation ("Respondent") filed their claim in the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor with the Applicant. During the course of the first meeting of Stakeholders Consultation Committee ("SCC") held on April 5, 2021, the claim filed by the Respondent towards Provident Fund (PF) dues was discussed. During the course of the second meeting of the SCC of the Corporate Debtor held on May 14, 2021, the status of claim adjudication was discussed and the Applicant requested further data and information from the Respondent. Thereafter, the Applicant had addressed an email dated September 6, 2021 to the office of the Respondent thereby informing them that with reference to the claim submitted and information provided by the Respondent, and on the basis of the books of accounts / other records of the Corporate Debtor as available with the Applicant, the Applicant has evaluated the claim and an amount of INR 9,87,66,568/- (Rupees Nine Crores Eighty Seven Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Eight Only) is found to be admissible as more particularly bifurcated and described in the aforesaid email. 

2.2. Further, during the course of the fourth meeting of the SCC of the Corporate Debtor held on September 23, 2021, the Applicant informed about the total amount as found to be admitted in respect of PF dues as claimed by the Respondent. 

2.3. Thereafter, the Applicant visited the office of the Respondent on October 4, 2021 and pursuant to the meeting held on the aforesaid date, the Respondent shared the minutes of the meeting with the Applicant vide email dated October 6, 2021. 

2.4. Subsequently, the Applicant by way of an email dated October 7, 2021 pointed out the omissions and mistakes in the minutes of the meeting shared by the Respondent. 

2.5. The Applicant addressed an email dated October 26, 2021 to the Respondent thereby requesting them to share the document providing claim calculation in terms of Section 7A of the PF Act. Subsequently, The Respondent shared the Microsoft Excel file with the Applicant containing data pertaining to the calculation of dues in terms of Section 7A of the PF Act and the interest charged thereon. 

2.6. Thereafter, the Applicant addressed an email dated November 9, 2021 to the Respondent, thereby stating that the labour charge related liability of INR 475.34 Lakhs was calculated from the balance sheet, and hence, the same must have been taken as annual numbers. The Respondent once again shared the Microsoft Excel Sheet pertaining to calculation of dues in terms of Section 7A of the PF Act. The Applicant once again addressed an email dated November 10. 2021 stating that the Applicant needs break- of the amount of INR 475.34 lakhs pertaining to labour charges on monthly basis. 

2.7. The Applicant finalized the admissible claim amount as INR 12,97,85,105/- (Rupees Twelve Crores Ninety-Seven Lakhs, EightyFive Thousand and One Hundred and Five Only) and communicated the same to the Respondent vide email dated November 18, 2021. The Respondent addressed an email dated December 17, 2021 to the Applicant stating that the assessment of claim by the Applicant is not acceptable to the office of the Respondent and the Respondent further requested the Applicant to consider the claim of the Respondent in entirety viz. INR 20,07,60,746/- and liquidate the said dues immediately. 


# 3. The Respondent No.1 filed affidavit in reply dated February, 2022 stating that an enquiry u/s 7A of the EPF & MP Act 1952 was initiated for the period from 03/2007 to 07/2011 vide summons no. MH/PF/43283/Enf-VIII/RO/KND/3113 dated 04.02.2013 based on default committed by establishment and non-compliance of provisions of EPF & MP Act as per various complaints received and EO report. Later on the enquiry was extended up to 07/2013 vide summons no. MH/43283/Comp-I/RO/KND/1579 dated 26.09.2013 as observed by EO default committed by establishment again. Further, the enquiry was again extended from 08/2013 10 03/2019 Vide no MH/43383/MH/PF Comp-/RO/KND-418 dated 06/12/2019 based on various complaints received in EPF office from employees of establishment and as per EO report duly verifying the records of establishment under which it was found the establishment failed to comply the provisions of EPF & MP Act and made default in remittance of PF contribution of employees, however establishment had deducted PF contribution from employees' salary. In this regard during the default period complaints u/s 406/409 of IPC were also filed with police authorities. An order u/s 7A vide no. MH/43283/comp-I/CIR- 507/RO/KND-II/769 dated 13.12.2019 was passed with assessment of dues for Rs. 10,79,49,882/- for the period 03/2007 to 03/2019. Two order u/s 14B vide dated 13.12.2019 for Rs.4,70,071/- & Rs. 1,06,84,780/- as well as two orders u/s 7Q of the Act dated 13.12.2019 for Rs. 2,21,658/- & Rs. 52,44,363/- for the period from 04/1996 to 10/2019 were also passed by EPFO Authority. 

3.1. During the course of enquiry, it was come to notice that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the establishment vide NCLT order dated 14.12.2018 and CA Devang Sampat was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) for doing the task of CIRP. The same process was not informed by establishment representative during enquiry. Accordingly, this office had filed claim in form no. F with IRP on 14.12.2019 for Rs. 12,45,70,754/-(10,79,49,882/-(7A) + Rs. 1,11.54,851/-414B) + Rs. 54,66.021/-(7Q)) and the same was accepted by IRP. 

3.2. Later on the establishment was considered for Liquidation by NCLT vide its order dated 16.12.2020 and Liquidation commencement date of Corporate Debtor was 16.12.2020. A mail dated 29.12.2020 informing to file fresh claim with liquidator by 15.01.2021 has been received from Liquidator Shri Divyesh Desai. Accordingly, this office has filed claim in Form C with supporting orders/records in favour of dues on 14.01.2021 for Rs. 20,07,60,746/- (7A dues for Rs. 11,45,79,863) 14B(Damages) for Rs. 1,11,54,851 & 70 (interest for 08/1996 to 10/2019 for Rs. 54,66,021 & interest accumulated on 7A dues for said period for Rs. 6.95,60,011/-). The total interest dues is of Rs. 7.50.26.032- (RS 11.45.79,863 Rs. 1.11.54,851 Rs. 7.50,26.032 = 20,07,60,746/-) 

3.3. By various emails, Liquidator called clarification regarding Increase in claim amount. Against which this office has aiso sent various mails/letters 11.02.2021, 17.02 2021, 25.03.2021. 05 04 2021, 01.06.2021 28.06.2021, 06.07.2021, 29.07.2021 clarifying in claim amount as 1. There was some error in calculation in 7A dues i.e. Annexure D part, which rectified and issued corrigendum dated 14.01.2021 calculating actual amount for Rs. 11.45.79,863/- instead of Rs. 10,79,49,882/-, 2. Interest calculated on 7A dues for the period 03/2007 to 03/2019 for Rs. 6,95,60,011/- 

3.4. Despite of several times clarifications offered by this office. the EPFO claim was not accepted & kept on evaluation by the Liquidator. 

3.5. 1st stakeholder’s consultation Committee meeting was held on 05.04.2021, therein EPFO participated and clarified its stand and emphasized on PF dues to be paid on priority over other debt & dues as PF dues is statutory dues and have Ist charge over other debt & due as section 11(2) of EPF & MP Act. 2nd Stakeholders consultation Committee meeting was held on 14.05 2021, therein also not informed that whether EPFO claim has been accepted or not except evaluation. Further, 3rd SCC held on 6th July, 2021, 4th SCC on 23rd September, 2021, 5th SCC on 12th November, 2021 & 6th SCC on 30th December, 2021 held. On 6th September, 2021 an email was received from the office of Liquidator evaluating the EPFO dues for Rs. 9,87,66,568 Hence it was not accepted and scheduled a meeting on 04.10.2021 with Liquidator, which was held on 04.10.2021 in Regional PF Office Kandivali-East by discussing EPFO Provisions and status of EPF dues in the matter. It was also requested by Liquidator during meeting to share the dues calculation excel file to cross examination and re- evaluation. Accordingly minutes of meeting held on 04.10.2021 was sent to Liquidator on 06.10.2021 & excel file was shared to him. Thereafter, an email dated 18.11.2021 has been sent by Liquidator to this office evaluating EPFO dues for Rs. 12,97,85,105/- by waiving of Labour charges for Rs. 4.75 Crores and interest thereon and considering EPFO as Unsecured Operational creditor, which is not acceptable. Hence, this office has issued a mail dated 17.12.2021 to Liquidator objecting evaluation of EPFO dues and informed that the evaluated dues is not acceptable. Further it is also requested to liquidate the EPFO dues in full and on priority basis as PF dues have last charge over other debts & dues as per section 11(2) of the EPF & MP Act and it has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 


# 4. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record. 

4.1. It is trite law that PF contributions of the employer and employee which are payable to the employee by the PF department do not form part of liquidation estate and has to be paid to the PF department for onward remission to the concerned employees in priority of all other debt. Accordingly, the Liquidator’s determination of the claim for a sum of Rs. 10,79,49,882/- being the amount of contribution to the Provident Fund included in the said demand of the Respondent is correct and that amount shall be considered falling outside the liquidation estate. The remaining claim of the applicant in so far as it pertains to claim of interest and damages or any other contribution not payable to the employees of the Corporate Debtor by such fund shall be regarded as operational debt due to the statutory authorities and considered accordingly in terms of Section 53 of the Code. 

4.2. Since, the employer and employee contribution to the provident which is payable by the PF department to the concerned employee is held to be outside the liquidation estate, the whole of such amount whether for the period of CIRP or prior to it shall be payable priority over all other claims. The rest of the amounts shall be admitted as unsecured operational debt and be dealt with in accordance with section 53 of the Code. 


# 5. In view of the aforesaid directions, this I.A. 53/2022 is allowed. 

------------------------------------------------ 


Wednesday 21 February 2024

Mr. V. Vijay Kumar Iyer, Vs. Bhoir Dredging Company Private Limited - Since, the Stakeholder Consultation Committee (SCC) has passed necessary resolution to disclaim the said properties, we permit the liquidator to disclaim these properties more particularly known as parcel 8 assets lying in the leased premises owned by Bhoir.

NCLT Mumbai-1 (2024.02.14) in Mr. V. Vijay Kumar Iyer, Vs. Bhoir Dredging Company Private Limited [I.A. 2876 OF 2023 in C.P.(IB) No. 292/MB/2017] held that;

  • Since, the Stakeholder Consultation Committee (SCC) has passed necessary resolution to disclaim the said properties, we permit the liquidator to disclaim these properties more particularly known as parcel 8 assets lying in the leased premises owned by Bhoir. 

  • Since this disclaimer has arisen on account of non-cooperative attitude of Bhoir which was not known to the liquidator during the initial period of liquidation commencement, we are of considered view that there exist sufficient cause for not filing application within 6 months from the liquidation commencement date to disclaim the said property. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the application in terms of Regulation 10 of IBBI(Liquidation Process) Regulation, 2016.

  • Despite clear rules embodied in the Code to deal with such property and the creditors claim, Bhoir obstructed the process of conclusion of auction sale. Bhoir also destroyed part of the asset in the form of shed and failed to safeguard the assets which resulted into theft of some portion of it. 

  • Accordingly, we are of considered view that such disclaimed assets shall be vested in Bhoir and the value of such assets shall be adjusted against the claim of Bhoir, pending in the liquidation proceedings. The claim of the Applicant shall be determined @Rs.14.00 lakhs per month till the end of the month in which the SCC resolved to disclaim these assets.


Excerpts of the order;

1. This Application IA 2876/2023 is filed by Sh. V. Vijaykumar Iyer, the Liquidator (“Liquidator”) in the Liquidation Proceedings (“Liquidation”) in the matter of M/s Bharati Defence and Infrastructure Limited [In Liquidation] (Corporate Debtor) under Section 60(5) of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("Code"), seeking following reliefs – 

  • a. Condone the delay of 333 days in filing the present Application, on account of the facts and circumstances highlighted in the present Application; and 

  • b. Approve the disclaimer of the Subject Properties owned by the Corporate Debtor and presently stored at the Premises owned by the Respondent, under Regulation 10 (1) (c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, as disclaimed on and by the notice dated 20.05.2023 sent by the Liquidator to the Respondent, being a person interested in the Subject Properties, under Regulation 10 (3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016; 

  • c. Set-off the liquidation value of the Subject Properties, as appearing in the valuation report submitted by the valuers of the Corporate Debtor, after discounting in various rounds of e-auctions, amounting to INR 7,40,00,000/-, against the CIRP and liquidation cost payable to the Respondent until the date of disclaimer of the Subject Properties, i.e., 20.05.2023, at the rate of INR 14,00,000/- per month, which stands at INR 11,80,82,473/- (inclusive of GST) as on the date of the disclaimer of the Subject Properties, of which INR 1,49,21,290/- (inclusive of GST) has already been paid by the liquidator to the Respondent on 10.06.2022.


2. Another Application IA 3743/2023 is filed by Bhoir Dredging Company Private Limited (“Landlord” or “Bhoir”) in the Liquidation Proceedings (“Liquidation”) in the matter of M/s Bharati Defence and Infrastructure Limited [In Liquidation] (Corporate Debtor) under Section 60(5) of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("Code"), seeking following reliefs : 

  • a. Direct the Liquidator to admit the claim of the Applicant as per the Lease Rentals agreed in the registered Leave and License Agreements dated November 4, 2009, October 29, 2009 and January 4, 2010 (Exhibit - C1 to C3) and as per the Claim Form dated July 8, 2017 and February 9, 2019 (Exhibit - F & G) submitted to the IRP and Liquidator respectively; 

  • b. Direct the Liquidator to compute and pay the Applicant, the Lease Rentals of Rs. 55 lakhs per months as in accordance with the Lease Rentals agreed in the registered Leave and License Agreements dated November 4, 2009, October 29, 2009 and January 4, 2010 (Exhibit - C1 to C3); 

  • c. Direct the Liquidator to release an amount of Rs. 41,76,96,210/- which is payable as Liquidation Cost towards Lease Rentals due and pending as per the calculation annexed at Exhibit - P: 

  • d. In the alternative to prayer clause (a) and (b), direct the Liquidator to forthwith release the Lease Rentals at the rate of Rs. 19/- per sq. ft. as indicated in the independent Valuation Report dated June 21, 2023 (Exhibit - O) to the account of the Applicant as per the calculation at Exhibit P. or at whatever rate that this Hon'ble Tribunal deems appropriate: 


3. The IA 2876/2023 is filed under Regulation 10 of Insolvency and N Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 ("Code") and Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("Code") read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, seeking leave of this Tribunal to disclaim certain assets of the Corporate Debtor ("Subject Properties") lying at the premises owned by Bhoir and situated at C.S. 20, Village Versova, Post. Ghodbunder, District Thane, Maharashtra ("Premises"). 


4. The Bhoir is the Lessor of the Corporate Debtor and IA 3743/2023 is filed seeking to admit the claim of the Bhoir in its entirety in full and in priority as and by way of liquidation costs & CIRP costs and also seeking a direction from this Tribunal to the Liquidator to pay the outstanding lease rental dues along-with other ancillary reliefs. Bhoir states that the above Company Petition filed by the Financial Creditor was admitted against the Corporate Debtor on June 6, 2017 and an Interim Resolution Professional was appointed. Ultimately, as the Resolution Plan did not fructify and a Liquidation Order was passed in the matter of the Corporate Debtor appointing the Respondent as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor on January 14, 2019. 


5. The subject matter of both the applications is the Subject Properties. One application is for disclaiming the subject properties in the Liquidation Proceedings and appropriation of said properties towards dues of Bhoir and the other Application is filed by Bhoir for direction to admit its claim and not to allow set off of its claim against the properties sought to be disclaimed in IA 2876/2023. 


Submissions of Bhoir 

6. Bhoir is owners of large pieces and parcel of Land spread out across several survey numbers in and around the Coast of Vasai Creek at Ghodbunder in Thane District spreading across several surveys, which had been leased to the Corporate Debtor vide the registered Leave and License Agreements dated October 29, 2009, November 4, 2009 and January 4, 2010 entered into by and between Bhoir Offshore Pvt. Ltd. (later amalgamated with the Landlord Company herein) and the Corporate Debtor. 


7. In and around 2013, Bhoir was informed by the Corporate Debtor that due to the global turmoil in the Ship Building Industry, they were facing liquidity crunch and the Applicant was called upon by the Corporate Debtor to provide temporary support during the crisis period. Accordingly, at their request, one single Agreement (unregistered) was executed on March 25, 2014 for the period between 1st April 2015 till 28th February 2015 and thereafter, subsequently renewed upto May 2017. It is the case of Bhoir that such unregistered agreement was entered as a temporary and interim measure, while the Liquidator denies so and has placed reliance upon these unregistered Agreements, entered into after expiry of registered agreement, so as to arrive at a computation of amounts payable to the Applicant at much lower rate (ie Rs. 14 lakhs per month) than was agreed by and between the Applicant and the Corporate Debtor in terms of registered agreement entered prior to unregistered agreement, even though both the registered and unregistered agreements have come to an end due to efflux of time, and also much lower than the existing rental income receivable. 


8. In the year 2017, after financial turmoil faced by the Corporate Debtor and accommodation provided by Bhoir for payment of Lease Rentals, the Corporate Debtor issued a Possession Receipt dated May 1, 2017 whereby it was inter-alia agreed between Bhoir and the Corporate Debtor that possession of entire stretch of land admeasuring total area of 55,759 sq. mts licensed under three registered Leave and License Agreements dated October 29, 2009, November 4, 2009 and January 4, 2010 would be handed over by the Corporate Debtor back to Bhoir, Rental bills due to the Applicant along with other relevant adjustments between the Corporate Debtor and Bhoir will be prepared and signed by both parties and a list detailing assets and stocks will be prepared and subsequently signed by both the parties. However, these statement of rental bills due and stocks were ultimately neither prepared nor signed by both parties. 


9. Bhoir has submitted that the aforestated arrangement as spelt out in the possession receipt, was in fact, never acted upon and implemented by the parties since the Corporate Debtor was admitted into CIRP. Further, despite purportedly handing over symbolic possession of the Property in 2017 through the Possession Receipt dated May 1, 2017, the Corporate Debtor, IRP and the Liquidator have remained in actual defacto possession of the Property till date, and the said Property owned by Bhoir could not be utilized for any other purpose. It is pertinent to note that both the registered and unregistered agreements executed between Bhoir and the Corporate Debtor had expired prior to admission of the IBC Petition against the Corporate Debtor. 


10. Bhoir has further submitted either the IRP or the Liquidator ought to have taken active steps to crystallize and arrive at the unpaid rental value and also ought to have taken active steps to pay the same. Unfortunately, this was not done for a period of 5 years in the manner as desired. Further, the passage of time resulted in deterioration and depreciation of value of assets lying on the said Pieces and Parcels of Land belonging to Bhoir herein. 


11.Upon admission of the Company Petition against the Corporate Debtor, Bhoir submitted a proof of claim was submitted to the Interim Resolution Professional on July 8, 2017 in Form B along with the necessary documents. The total amount of claim (principal) was was determined by Bhoir to be Rs. 62,62,31,651/- (Rupees Sixty-Two Crore Sixty-Two Lakh Thirty-One Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-One Only) and submitted along with the necessary computation, ledger and documents. At no point in time, Bhoir has calculated and/or submitted the computation at Rs. 14 lakhs per month. After the Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor was ordered in January 2019, a proof of claim was submitted by Bhoir to the Liquidator on February 9, 2019 in Form C under Regulation 17 of I&B (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2017 along with the necessary documents. The total amount of claim (principal) was determined by Bhoir to be Rs. 62,62,31,651/- (Rupees Sixty-Two Crore Sixty-Two Lakh Thirty- One Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-One Only) and submitted along with the necessary computation, ledger and documents. At no point in time even after appointment of the Liquidator, the Applicant has calculated and/or submitted the computation at Rs. 14 lakhs per month.. 


12.Bhoir and Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor have exchanged various emails and correspondences from 2019 till 2023, in relation to various aspects including the amount payable to Bhoir, sale/auction process of the assets of the Corporate Debtor lying at the said Premises etc. However, due to lapse of more than 6 years since admission of the Corporate Debtor into CIRP, the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor lying at the said premises depreciated whereas, the amount of lease rentals payable to the Applicants kept increasing. However, it is pertinent to note that the assets of the Corporate Debtor lying at the said Premises is not related to the lease rentals payable to Bhoir herein, since the lease rentals is payable for possession of the pieces and parcels of the land and not related to the individual assets lying thereon. 


13.Thereafter, a Notice under Regulation 10(3) of the I&B (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 was served on behalf of the Corporate Debtor to Bhoir by the Liquidator purportedly raising contentions of Bhoir having frustrated the sale of assets and holding Bhoir purportedly responsible for misappropriating goods forming part of the assets of the Corporate Debtor. Bhoir in response have addressed a Reply dated May 26, 2023 categorically denying the said contentions in the Notice addressed by the Liquidator under Regulation 10(3) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulation, 2017. Submissions of Liquidator 


14.It is the case of the Liquidator that there was no subsisting leave & license agreement as on date of commencement of CIRP and the last leave & license agreement contemplated payment of rent of Rs. 14,00,000/- per month as against Rs. 52,50,000/- per month as per last registered Leave & License Agreement subsisting prior to such unregistered Leave & License Agreement. The Liquidator has also vehemently denied that the unregistered leave & license agreement was entered merely for the purpose of compliance aspect and has asserted that such unregistered leave & license agreement duly recorded the last agreed arrangement with Bhoir in relation to lease of premises. 


15.It is further stated that the Liquidator vide his email dated 3.6.2022 had informed Bhoir that an amount of INR 6,37,35,226/- was payable for the liquidation period commencing from 14.1.2019 till 31.3.2022 at the rate of INR 14,00,000/- per month. Since the proceeds were insufficient to meet the debts in full, 23.43% of INR 6,37,35,226/- due to Bhoir as part of the liquidation cost could be offered to be paid by the Liquidator and Bhoir was requested to share invoices and bank account details to facilitate the said payment. 


16.In response, Bhoir by email dated 8.6.2022 shared its bank details with the Liquidator along with an invoice dated 7.6.2022 for an amount of INR 1,49,21,290/0 for the period between 14.1.2019 till 14.10.2019 at the rate of INR 14,00,000/- per month and referred to the leave and license agreement dated 13.4.2015. This invoice was duly paid after deducting the tax at source on 10.6.2022 and fact of payment was communicated vide email dated 17.6.2022. 


17.Bhoir had duly acknowledged the receipt of said payment vide email dated 6.7.2022 and also stated the rent amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- per month by stating that “kindly acknowledge our continued rental for the period from April, 2022 to June, 2022 of Rs. 49,56,000/- (Rs. 14,00,000/- plus GST @ 18% p.m.)..” 


18.It is further stated that Bhoir continued to write several emails to the Liquidator (from August 2022 – February 2023), bringing to his attention, the rent payable to it at the rate of INR 14,00,000/- per month along with applicable taxes. In none of these seven (7) communications did the Applicant dispute the amount of monthly rent payable and clearly acknowledged and accepted INR 14,00,000/- per month as the amount of monthly rent payable. 


19.It has further been stated that the auction sale of assets of the Corporate Debtor lying in the premises owned by Bhoir was completed by issuance of sale certificate on 17.2.2023, however the same could not be completed due to hinderance caused by Bhoir and this ultimately led to failure of sale of such properties to the Successful Bidder, who was denied the entry into the premises by the Applicant. 


20.Bhoir demanded the payment of entire past dues as a precondition to enter the premises. After extensive persuasion, the successful bidder was only allowed to inspect the properties lying in such premises, whereupon it was found that certain assets of the Subject properties sold to the Successful Bidder were untraceable, though they were present at the Premises when the Successful Bidder conducted its due diligence on 19.10.2021 before the e-auction held on 26.10.2021. In view of this, the Successful Bidder requested the Liquidator to not I.A. 2876 OF 2023 issue the sale certificate prior to the issue of untraceable goods being resolved. 


21.At this, the Liquidator vide email dated 11.2.2023 sough the assistance of Bhoir to locate Parcel 8 assets, however, Bhoir vide email dated 15.2.2023 stated that it had not received any handover or custody of any list / assets / items left by the Corporate Debtor at its Premises and made incorrect allegations in relation to monthly rentals by demanding INR 72,00,000/- per month instead of INR 14,00,000/, citing the current market rates, without any basis or evidence. 


22.By his response dated 22.2.2023 to the Applicant, the Liquidator submitted that the Corporate Debtor had vacated the larger area of the Premises in May 2017 and only certain assets ‘ goods were lying on the Premises, thereby occupying only limited area of the Premises, which was also intimated by the Corporate debtor through the Possession Letter dated 1.5.2017. 


23.However, the completion of sale of Parcel 8 Properties could not take place due to adamant attitude of Bhoir in not locating the missing the assets & dismantling of few sheds by the Applicant. The consideration received from the successful buyer was refunded back after the having left with no choice in the matter and permission of the Tribunal permitting the cancellation of said sale vide Order dated 28.6.2023 was also obtained in this relation. 


24.A joint inspection with the Applicant was carried out and it was found the certain goods of the Corporate Debtor along with steel plates which were part of the boundary wall of the Premises, were not traceable and electrical assets such as Transformer – 1250 KVA – 11KV/440 V, LT Switch Board, Main Switch Board and other electrical wires belonging to the Corporate Debtor along with certain sheds had been deliberately withheld by Bhoir, in lieu of the payment of rental dues. Accordingly, the Applicant was put on notice vide email dated 11.4.2023 regarding such illegal and mala fide actions which had been causing immense prejudice to the sale and liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor. In response, Bhoir refuted the contentions of the Liquidator by even dated mail and offered to immediately hand over the assets of the Corporate Debtor on ‘as is where is what is basis’, provided the monthly rental of the INR 52,50,000/- + taxes was accepted by the Liquidator and also disowning the responsibility in relation to missing goods. 


25.It is the case of the Liquidator that these properties do not continue to be readily saleable and have become onerous to the Corporate Debtor, on account of the obstructions and mala fide actions undertaken by the Applicant. Accordingly, on 20.5.2023 the Liquidator issued a notice to the Applicant under Regulation 10(3) of the Liquidation Regulations disclaiming the said Properties of the Corporate Debtor lying at the Premises owned by the Applicant in terms of the Regulation 10(1)© of the Liquidation Regulations. 


26.It is further submitted that the action of issuing notice under Regulation 10(3) of the Liquidation regulations for disclaiming the said Properties and filing of application for the same before the Tribunal were taken by the Liquidation only pursuant to discussion and consultation with the members of the Stakeholder’s Consultation Committee. 


27.Heard the Learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. 


28. In this case the liquidator has sought approval of this Tribunal to disclaim the parcel 8 assets referred as the said property on the ground that part of such assets has been stolen from the leased premises owned by Bhoir and such act has led to the cancellation of already concluded auction sale. The Liquidator has further stated  that the ‘sheds’ constructed by the Corporate Debtor on the piece of land leased to it were dismantled by Bhoir and Bhoir refused to return the material comprised in such shed stating that property tax on such shed was paid and borne by Bhoir, accordingly, Corporate Debtor does not have any right over the assets comprised as shed. It is the case of the liquidator that these assets have become onerous assets and offered and issue notice to Bhoir in terms of Regulation 10 (3) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. 


29. Regulation 10 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board Of India (Liquidation Process) REGULATIONS, 2016, reads as under: 

  • 10. Disclaimer of onerous property. 

  • (1) Where any part of the property of a corporate debtor consists of- 

  • (a) land of any tenure, burdened with onerous covenants; 

  • (b) shares or stocks in companies; 

  • (c) any other property which is not saleable or is not readily saleable by reason of the possessor thereof being bound either to the performance of any onerous act or to the payment of any sum of money; or 

  • (d) unprofitable contracts; the liquidator may, notwithstanding that he has endeavored to sell or has taken possession of the property or exercised any act of ownership in relation thereto or done anything in pursuance of the contract, make an application to the Adjudicating Authority within six months from the liquidation commencement date, or such 10 extended period as may be allowed by the Adjudicating Authority, to disclaim the property or contract. 

  • (2) The liquidator shall not make an application under subregulation (1) if a person interested in the property or contract inquired in writing whether he will make an application to have such property disclaimed, and he did not communicate his intention to do so within one month from receipt of such inquiry. 

  • (3) The liquidator shall serve a notice to persons interested in the onerous property or contract at least seven days before making an application for disclaimer to the Adjudicating Authority: 

  • Explanation: A person is interested in the onerous property or contract if he- (a) is entitled to the benefit or subject to the burden of the contract; or (b) claims an interest in a disclaimed property or is under a liability not discharged in respect of a disclaimed property. 

  • (4) Subject to the order of the Adjudicating Authority approving such disclaimer, the disclaimer shall operate to determine, from the date of disclaimer, the rights, interest and liabilities of the corporate debtor in or in respect of the property or contract disclaimed, but shall not, except so far as is necessary for the purpose of releasing the corporate debtor and the property of the corporate from liability, affect the rights, interest or liabilities of any other person. 

  • (5) A person affected by the disclaimer under this Regulation shall be deemed to be a creditor of the corporate debtor for the amount of the compensation or damages payable in respect of such effect, and may accordingly be payable as a debt in liquidation under section 53(1)(f).” 


30. In the present case, we note that completed auction sale got cancelled in view of non-cooperation of Bhoir in whose custody these assets were lying. We find that Bhoir has been approbating and reprobating in relation to the amount of rent payable by the Corporate Debtor after the expiry of registered documents. It is an undisputed fact that Bhoir accepted part of rent offered by the Liquidator, which was determined at the rate of Rs. 14 Lakhs per month. Even after acceptance of part rent @ Rs.14 lakhs per month Bhoir had again sought to contend that the rent payable in fact is Rs.52.50 lakhs per month and demanding the same as a pre-condition to release the said assets lying in the leased premises which is under the custody and in control of Bhoir. 


31.Regulation 10 (3) notice has been given by the liquidator and Bhoir has filed another Application No. 3743/2023 to seek order from this Tribunal to restrain the liquidator from disclaiming the assets and claiming the set-off of dues against such disclaimed assets. We find from the pleadings that Bhoir is holding those assets which makes it interested in the said property to ensure realisation of its dues. We further find that Bhoir has not been cooperating with the liquidator in relation to said assets even though the liquidator has always considered the claim of Bhoir for payment @ Rs.14.00 Lakh per month till the assets of the Corporate Debtor were lying in the premises of Bhoir. This clearly indicates that Bhoir has been holding these assets, part of which is allegedly misappropriated, to secure the payment of its dues. 


32.Since, the Stakeholder Consultation Committee (SCC) has passed necessary resolution to disclaim the said properties, we permit the liquidator to disclaim these properties more particularly known as parcel 8 assets lying in the leased premises owned by Bhoir. Since this disclaimer has arisen on account of non-cooperative attitude of Bhoir which was not known to the liquidator during the initial period of liquidation commencement, we are of considered view that there exist sufficient cause for not filing application within 6 months from the liquidation commencement date to disclaim the said property. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the application in terms of Regulation 10 of IBBI(Liquidation Process) Regulation, 2016. 


33.Having held so, we now come to the prayer for lying set of disclaimed assets against the dues of Bhoir and prayer of Bhoir contrary to that. 


34.The scheme of Code for liquidation process clearly lays down procedure for settlement of dues of the creditors and the manner in which the assets in possession of such creditor is to be dealt with. It is an undisputed fact that Bhoir was in control and custody of the said properties of the Corporate Debtor lying in leased premises. Despite clear rules embodied in the Code to deal with such property and the creditors claim, Bhoir obstructed the process of conclusion of auction sale. Bhoir also destroyed part of the asset in the form of shed and failed to safeguard the assets which resulted into theft of some portion of it. Accordingly, we are of considered view that such disclaimed assets shall be vested in Bhoir and the value of such assets shall be adjusted against the claim of Bhoir, pending in the liquidation proceedings. The claim of the Applicant shall be determined @Rs.14.00 lakhs per month till the end of the month in which the SCC resolved to disclaim these assets. 


35.In view therefore, I.A. 2876/2023 is allowed and I.A. 3743/2023 is dismissed. 


------------------------------------------------