In a Major Relief to the lenders of the DHFL, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) refused to grant Interim Stay on Piramal’s Resolution Plan.
The plea filed by the 63 Moons Technologies which holds non-convertible debentures (NCDs) worth over Rs 200 crore issued by DHFL urged that Resolution Plan was in contravention of provisions of law and thus deserves to be stayed.
Mr. Anupam Lal Das, the counsel for the appellant has argued that the Resolution Plan is a contract and the considerations have to be lawful. The stipulation in the Resolution Plan approved will deprive the persons who were defrauded by fraudulent transactions for which the avoidance applications have been filed. If such benefit is not given to the persons defrauded, it would be against the public policy. It is argued that ascribing a value of Rupee 1 to the future recoveries (involving amounts in excess of Rs.45,000 Crores) is not adequately factoring in the Resolution Plan amount. It is argued that ascribing such value of Rupee 1 to the future recoveries has not taken into consideration the aspect of value maximisation of the assets of DHFL.
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Counsel for the Administrator of DHFL has submitted that the Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No.2- ‘Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited’ (Successful Resolution Applicant) has been approved by the majority of Committee of Creditors to the extent of 93.65% and that Reserve Bank of India as well as Competition Commission of India have also approved the plan. It was argued that the Appeal is not maintainable. The Appellant is a Financial Creditor of DHFL holding Non- convertible Debentures (NCD) worth Rs.200 Crores (which is 0.2% on Committee of Creditors) and that the Appellant was a part of the class of NCD holders. In terms of Section 21(6A) of the ‘I&B Code’, the Appellant was represented in the Committee of Creditors by its debenture trustee, ‘Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd.’
The coram headed by the Chairperson Justice A I S Cheema and Member Alok Srivastava rejected 63 Moons Technologies’ plea to pass an interim order staying the resolution plan approved by the Mumbai bench of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
“If the averments made by Appellant (63 Moons) are juxtaposed with averments made by Respondents, we do not find it a fit case to pass interim orders as sought. We do not think that any interim order as sought with regard to Resolution Plan approved needs to be passed,” said the NCLAT.
“The Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the execution of the Resolution Plan should be subject to the outcome of these Appeals. On July 6, 2021 itself, we have observed that it is a matter of law and we need not pass any specific orders. Both the Applications in both the Appeals stand disposed of accordingly,” the NCLAT said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
