The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai has stayed the implementation of order approving MGM Healthcare managing director M.K. Rajagopalan’s ₹423 crore bid to take over Appu Hotels Limited. Appu Hotels owns and operates Le Meridien in Chennai and Coimbatore.
[7/31, 12:02] Sekarreporter: NCLAT stays NCLT order approving ₹423 crore bid for Appu Hotels https://www.sekarreporter.com/nclat-stays-nclt-order-approving-%e2%82%b9423-crore-bid-for-appu-hotels/
[7/31, 12:03] Sekarreporter: NCLAT stays NCLT order approving ₹423 crore bid for Appu Hotels
CHENNAI: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai has stayed the implementation of order approving MGM Healthcare managing director M.K. Rajagopalan’s ₹423 crore bid to take over Appu Hotels Limited. Appu Hotels owns and operates Le Meridien in Chennai and Coimbatore.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai had approved the bid. Against this Periasamy Palani Gounder (Promoter & Erstwhile Director) Appu Hotels Limited moved the NCLAT.
In his petition, he alleged that the whole ‘Resolution Process’ is vitiated by numerous statutory violations of the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy code. The resolution professional Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan and Rajagopalan were named as respondents.
Mr. Periasamy alleged that Rajagopalan was put in a pole position to abdicate with assets worth over Rs.1600 Crores for a paltry sum of Rs.423 Crores.
Mr. Periasamy also said he is ready to pay all the ‘Financial Creditors’, ‘Operational Creditors’ and ‘Unsecured Financial Creditors. He also said he will deposit Rs. 450 crore and he requires two or three days time in this regard.
He argued that NCLT had failed to interfere with the attempt to acquire the assets of Appu Hotels for less than 25% of its actual value, while the ‘Promoters’ are ready and willing to infuse more funds than Rajagopalan and to settle all the Creditors in an expeditious manner.
The respondents argued that NCLT approval was valid.
NCLAT said submissions projected on either side require a detailed rumination and granted respondents two weeks time to file detailed replies against the appeal and stayed the implementation of NCLT order till next date of hearing.
[7/31, 12:03] Sekarreporter: Comp App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 164 of 2021
1 | P a g e
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 164 of 2021
(Under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016)
Against the Order dated 15.07.2021 in MA/13/CHE/2021 in IBA/1459/2019
passed by the Adjudicating Authority,
(National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai Bench)
In the matter of:
Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder
(Promoter & Erstwhile Director)
Appu Hotels Limited, 4A,
Dugar Apartments, Raja Rengasamy Road,
Off 4th Seaward Valmiki Nagar,
Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041. …Appellant
1.Mr. Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan
Appu Hotels Limited,
D-3, Triumph Apartments, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai,
Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106. …Respondent No.1
2.M. K. Rajagopalan
Balaji Villa, No. 30A, Beach Road,
Kapaleeshwarar Nagar, Neelangarai,
Chennai-600 115. …Respondent No.2
For Appellant : Mr. P. H. Arvindh Pandian, Sr. Advocate
and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate
For Mr. K. Surendar and Chenthoori Pugazendhi, Advocate
For Respondent No.1: Mr. Vijay Narayan, Sr. Advocate (Resolution Professional)
For Mr. T. Ravichandran, Advocate
For Respondent No.2: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate
(Successful Resolution Applicant)
and Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Advocate
[7/31, 12:04] Sekarreporter: Comp App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 164 of 2021
10 | P a g e
“If an application u/s 12A is filed by the Appellant, the ‘Committee of
Creditors’ may decide as to whether the proposal given by the Appellant for
settlement in terms of Section 12A is better than the ‘Resolution Plan’ as
approved by it, and may pass appropriate order. However, as such decision is
required to be taken by the ‘Committee of Creditors’, we are not expressing any
opinion on the same”
39. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to Paragraph 72 of the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Jagatramka v Jindal Steel
and Power Ltd. and Anr. (Civil Appeal 9664 of 2019 dated 15.03.2021) in regard to
the ‘Withdrawal of Application’ under the Code.
40. This ‘Tribunal’ at the ‘admission stage’ has heard the Learned Counsels
appearing for the parties and noted their contentions. As a matter of fact, the
submissions projected on either side require a detailed rumination in the hands of this
‘Tribunal’ and viewed in this perspective, this ‘Tribunal’ is of the considered view
that the Respondents are to file detailed ‘Reply’/Replies by traversing or dealing with
the aspects projected by the ‘Appellant’ side before this ‘Appeal’ for an elaborate
consideration of ‘Hearing’, to prevent an aberration of justice and to promote
substantial cause of justice. Viewed in that perspective, this ‘Tribunal’ grants two
weeks time to the Respondents to file detailed ‘Reply’/Replies to the ‘Appeal’ filed
by the ‘Appellant’ and the same is to be filed before the ‘Office of the Registry’ not
only through e-filing but also through hardcopy and the copy of the same shall be
exchanged between them. Soon after the receipt of the Reply/Response/Counter four
day’s time is granted to the appellant therein to file ‘Rejoinder’, if any.
41. Till the next date of ‘Hearing’, there shall be a stay of the implementation
of the ‘Impugned Order’.