NCLAT didn’t incline to determine the initial issue whether there was a pre-existing dispute or not as more than one & a half year has passed & as the matter remains pending since long because of the Promoters- Vishal Vijay Kalantri Vs. DBM Geotechnics & Construction Pvt. Ltd – NCLAT
NCLAT held that at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the Appellant wanted to highlight the merit to suggest that there is a ‘pre-existence of dispute’. However, as more than one and a half year has passed and as the matter remains pending since long because of the Appellant – Vishal Vijay Kalantri, the Promoter would have settled the matter with the creditors and also sought time, we are not inclined to determine the initial issue whether there was a ‘pre-existing dispute’ or not. Even if, the proceedings is quashed on the ‘pre-existing dispute’, as admittedly there is a default of payment and it will regenerate other proceedings, which is not desirable. Admittedly, the CoC now approved the plan as submitted by the APSEZL with 99.68% voting share and approved on 19th September, 2019. The matter is pending before the Adjudicating Authority for passing the order under Section 31(1) of the Code. In terms of the Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., the Adjudicating Authority or the NCLT or this Appellate Tribunal cannot sit in appeal on commercial wisdom of the CoC.
