VIJAY KUMAR JAIN Vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of an Appellate Tribunal's judgment rejecting the appellant's prayer for directions to the resolution professional to provide all relevant documents including the insolvency resolution plans in question to members of the suspended Board of Directors of the corporate debtor in each case so that they may meaningfully participate in meetings held by the committee of creditors ["CoC"].

(2.) We may take the facts of Civil Appeal No.8430 of 2018. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. the corporate debtor, was incorporated on 06.01.1986. It is said to be a profit-making company in the business of processing of oil-seeds and refining crude oil for edible use. In September, 2017, Company Petition Nos.1371 and 1372 were filed by Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. and DBS Bank Ltd., being financial creditors of the aforesaid corporate debtor. These two company petitions were admitted on 8th and 15th December, 2017, respectively, by the National Company Law Tribunal ["NCLT"]. One Shri Shailendra Ajmera of Ernst and Young was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional in both petitions. The CoC was constituted under Section 21 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ["Insolvency Code" or "Code"], and the appellant being a member of the suspended Board of Directors was given notice and the agenda for the first CoC meeting held on 12.01.2018, and was permitted to attend the aforesaid meeting. He alleges, which is disputed by the respondents, that subsequent meetings of the CoC were held in which he was denied participation. As a result, the appellant filed Miscellaneous Application No.518 of 2018 on 07.06.2018 before the NCLT in order that the appellant be allowed to effectively participate in these meetings. It is stated before us that in the tenth meeting dated 12.08.2018, the appellant executed a nondisclosure agreement for sharing resolution plans of the corporate debtor. Under the said agreement, the appellant undertook to indemnify the resolution professional and keep information that is received as to the resolution plan strictly confidential.

(3.) By an order dated 01.08.2018, the NCLT dismissed the application with liberty to the appellant to attend CoC meetings but not to insist upon being provided information considered confidential either by the resolution professional or the committee of creditors. Against this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which recognized the appellant's right to attend and participate in CoC meetings, but denied the appellant's prayer to access certain documents, most particularly, the resolution plans. Thereafter, an application for modification/clarification of the Appellate Tribunal's order was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.08.2018 of the Appellate Tribunal, the appellants have filed the present appeal. In the meanwhile, on 23.08.2018, the resolution plan of one Adani Wilmar Limited was approved by majority of 96.86% of the committee of creditors. On 24.08.2018, the resolution professional submitted its resolution plan, as approved by the CoC, to the Adjudicating Authority. On 27.08.2018, this Court, by an interim order, stated, while issuing notice, that the bids will not be finalized by the Adjudicating Authority without the leave of this Court. On 10.09.2018, this Court clarified, in an application filed by the resolution professional, that the Adjudicating Authority could continue with the proceedings but no order could be passed on the same until this Court adjudicates on the present appeal.