Responding to a query by the NCLAT on a related aspect, Rohatgi countered:
“I have every right to go to the US court. IBC proceedings are not recovery proceedings. They are meant for revival. That is the foundation.”
“We might argue, we might go before the Supreme Court and say it is for revival but in reality, it is for recovery only. What else? Financial creditors have their own remedy. Who has stopped you? Rule 11 gives me power to use discretion before CoC is formed. So I’ll choose whether to use or not,” the NCLAT Bench observed.
“My argument is, don’t use it,” Rohatgi urged.
“There is a procedure under IBC. These are not recovery proceedings,” added Senior Advocate Krishnendu Datta on behalf of GlasTrust.
“I know that. Had the CoC been constituted it would have been a different matter,” the NCLAT Bench observed.
The appellate tribunal proceeded to indicate that it did not wish to keep the matter pending for longer.
“This is unnecessary hyping the matter. It is simple matter of settlement and I would have passed order in two minutes … I am a little disturbed because the same thing is being argued. It is like any other case. There is nothing special about this,” the NCLAT said, before pronouncing its decision today.
Source: Barandbench
