TAP WORLD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are asserted to be the members of the 'Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry' ('KCCI' for short) - which is stated to be a Company originally registered under Sec. 25 of the Companies Act, 1956.

(2.) The petitioners impugns Ext.P6 order issued by the 'National Company Law Tribunal' ('NCLT' for short), issued by it invoking power under Sec. 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC' for short) qua the 'KCCI'; and impute that the said order is the product of a fraud committed by it, in conjunction with the Financial Institution, which approached the said Tribunal.

(3.) Sri.D.Anil Kumar - learned counsel for the petitioners, explained that the controversy has its genesis in the fact that the 'KCCI' obtained certain financial facilities from the South Indian Bank Ltd, which was then declared by the latter as a Non- Performing Asset. He submitted that the Bank, thereupon, initiated action under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 before the jurisdictional Debt Recovery Tribunal ('DRT' for short); and also initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act ('SARFAESI Act' for short). He pointed out that, in the meanwhile, and somewhere along the time, the secured debt appears to have been assigned by the Bank in favour of the 4threspondent - which is a statutorily established 'Asset Reconstruction Company' (ARC); and that they, suppressing the afore actions taken by the Bank, approached the 'NCLT', to obtain Ext.P16 order. He vehemently argued that Ext.P16 is thus an order issued by the 'NCLT' without being aware of the foundational facts; and hence, that it can only be construed to be the product of fraud and misrepresentation.