Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Sidhra and Mr. Swarnendu Chatterjee, Mr. Yashwardhan Singh, Advocates, Ms. Niddhi Khanna, Advocate, Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr Advocate, Mr. Ujjwal Sinha, Mr. Ankit Seth, Mr. Ankit Raj and Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Advocates., Mr. Kunal Mimani, Mr. Kunal Vajani and Mr. Shubhang Tandon, Advocates., Mr. Vikas Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anshula Grover, Mr. Mayan Prasad, Advocates., Mr. Gaurav H. Sethi, Mr. Rahul Oak and Mr. Siddhesh Shetye, Advocates., Mr. Rishi K. Awasthi and Mr. Sumeet raj, Advocates,
  • Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Rajadhyaksha, Ms. Aditi Bhansali, Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Mr. Madhur Arora, Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Totala, Ms. Trisha Sarkar and Ms. Tanya Chib, Advocates for R-1 & 3;
  • Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Ms. Mahima Singh, Advocates for SRA;
  • Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Ms. Isha Malik and Ms. Niharika Shukla, Advocates for R-2;
  • Mr. K. Datta. Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajat Sinha, Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Ms. Mahima Singh and Ms. Aveena Shrama, Advocates for R-4;
  • Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Rajadhyaksha, Ms. Aditi Bhansali, Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Mr. Madhur Arora, Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Totala, Ms. Trisha Sarkar and Ms. Tanya Chib, Advocates for R-1 & 3;
  • Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Rajadhyaksha, Ms. Aditi Bhansali, Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Mr. Madhur Arora, Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Totala, Ms. Trisha Sarkar and Ms. Tanya Chib, Advocates for R-1;
  • Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Ms. Mahima Singh, Ms. Arveena Sharma, Advocates for R-2/for consortium;
  • Mr. Balbir Singh, ASG, Mr. Arvind Pinto, Advocate (Applicant in IA 2720/2021)
  • Mr. Gaurav Raj Shrawat and Ms. Bhavika Thakkar, Intervener/Principal Commissioner Income Tax Central-3, Mumbai.(Inatervenor IA No. 2720/2021)
  • Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Rajadhyaksha, Ms. Aditi Bhansali, Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Mr. Madhur Arora, Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Totala, Ms. Trisha Sarkar and Ms. Tanya Chib, Advocates for R-1;
  • Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Ms. Mahima Singh, Ms. Arveena Sharma, Advocates for R-2;
  • Mr. K. Datta. Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Ms. Mahima Singh and Ms. Aveena Shrama, Advocates for R-3;
  • Mr. Malhar Zatakia, Ms. Aditi Bhansali, Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Mr. Madhur Arora, Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Totala, Ms. Trisha Sarkar and Ms. Tanya Chib, Advocates for R-1 & 3.
Judges
  • Ashok Bhushan
  • Chairperson
  • Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Sidhra and Mr. Swarnendu Chatterjee, Mr. Yashwardhan Singh, Advocates, Ms. Niddhi Khanna, Advocate, Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr Advocate, Mr. Ujjwal Sinha, Mr. Ankit Seth, Mr. Ankit Raj and Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Advocates., Mr. Kunal Mimani, Mr. Kunal Vajani and Mr. Shubhang Tandon, Advocates., Mr. Vikas Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anshula Grover, Mr. Mayan Prasad, Advocates., Mr. Gaurav H. Sethi, Mr. Rahul Oak and Mr. Siddhesh Shetye, Advocates., Mr. Rishi K. Awasthi and Mr. Sumeet raj, Advocates,
  • Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Rajadhyaksha, Ms. Aditi Bhansali, Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Mr. Madhur Arora, Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Totala, Ms. Trisha Sarkar and Ms. Tanya Chib, Advocates for R-1 & 3;
  • Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Ms. Mahima Singh, Advocates for SRA;
  • Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Ms. Isha Malik and Ms. Niharika Shukla, Advocates for R-2;
  • Mr. K. Datta. Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajat Sinha, Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Ms. Mahima Singh and Ms. Aveena Shrama, Advocates for R-4;
  • Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Rajadhyaksha, Ms. Aditi Bhansali, Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Mr. Madhur Arora, Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Totala, Ms. Trisha Sarkar and Ms. Tanya Chib, Advocates for R-1 & 3;
  • Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Rajadhyaksha, Ms. Aditi Bhansali, Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Mr. Madhur Arora, Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Totala, Ms. Trisha Sarkar and Ms. Tanya Chib, Advocates for R-1;
  • Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Ms. Mahima Singh, Ms. Arveena Sharma, Advocates for R-2/for consortium;
  • Mr. Balbir Singh, ASG, Mr. Arvind Pinto, Advocate (Applicant in IA 2720/2021)
  • Mr. Gaurav Raj Shrawat and Ms. Bhavika Thakkar, Intervener/Principal Commissioner Income Tax Central-3, Mumbai.(Inatervenor IA No. 2720/2021)
  • Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Rajadhyaksha, Ms. Aditi Bhansali, Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Mr. Madhur Arora, Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Totala, Ms. Trisha Sarkar and Ms. Tanya Chib, Advocates for R-1;
  • Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Ms. Mahima Singh, Ms. Arveena Sharma, Advocates for R-2;
  • Mr. K. Datta. Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Ms. Mahima Singh and Ms. Aveena Shrama, Advocates for R-3;
  • Mr. Malhar Zatakia, Ms. Aditi Bhansali, Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Mr. Madhur Arora, Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Totala, Ms. Trisha Sarkar and Ms. Tanya Chib, Advocates for R-1 & 3.
Judges
  • Ashok Bhushan
  • Chairperson
  • Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical)
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns I.A. No. 2720 of 2021 filed by the Principal Commissioner Income Tax Central-3 Mumbai as an applicant in Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 584 of 2021. The appeals challenge the Order dated 22 June 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority approving a Resolution Plan. The effective date for the plan's implementation is fixed as 28 May 2022, and the implementation process has commenced. The appellant has expressed concerns that if their claim is allowed after the plan is implemented, the Successful Resolution Applicant may not satisfy their claim. An interim order in a related appeal (Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 686 of 2021) is also noted to continue.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Applicant (Principal Commissioner Income Tax) can be permitted to intervene in the appeal challenging the approval of the Resolution Plan.
  2. Whether the implementation of the Resolution Plan should be stayed or conditioned pending the outcome of the appeals.
  3. Whether the Successful Resolution Applicant should be restrained from alienating the ‘BKC’ property pending the next hearing.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

  • The Applicant relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 15.09.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 3290 of 2017 (Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.) and subsequent order dated 16.11.2021 to seek permission to intervene in the appeal.

Appellant's Arguments

  • The Appellant expressed apprehension that if their claim is allowed after the Resolution Plan is implemented, the Successful Resolution Applicant may not satisfy their claim.

Successful Resolution Applicant's Position

  • Through Senior Advocate Mr. Krishnendu Datta, it was submitted that the Successful Resolution Applicant shall withhold the ‘BKC’ property and shall not alienate it until the next date of hearing.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 3290 of 2017 (Supreme Court, Order dated 15.09.2021 and 16.11.2021) Permission to intervene in appeals related to tax claims in insolvency proceedings. The Court relied on this precedent to permit the Applicant to intervene in the present appeal.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court allowed the Applicant to intervene based on the Supreme Court’s earlier orders in the Jet Airways case, recognizing the Applicant’s interest in the appeal concerning the Resolution Plan. The Court acknowledged the appellant’s concern about the possible non-satisfaction of their claim if the Resolution Plan is implemented before the appeal is decided. To safeguard the appellant’s interest, the Court ordered that the implementation of the Resolution Plan shall be subject to the outcome of these appeals. Additionally, the Court accepted the submission that the Successful Resolution Applicant shall withhold the ‘BKC’ property and refrain from alienating it until the next hearing. The Court also continued the interim order in a related appeal to maintain the status quo.

Holding and Implications

I.A. No. 2720 of 2021 is allowed, permitting the Applicant to intervene in the appeal. The appeals challenging the Resolution Plan approval are scheduled for hearing on 5 July 2022, and the implementation of the Resolution Plan is to proceed only in accordance with the eventual outcome of these appeals. The Successful Resolution Applicant is restrained from alienating the ‘BKC’ property pending further orders. The interim order in Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 686 of 2021 continues.

No new precedent was established; the decision primarily preserves the parties' rights pending final adjudication of the appeals.

Show full summary ...

    Association Of Aggrieved Workmen Of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. And Others

    1. I.A. No. 2720 of 2021 in Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 584 of 2021 has been filed by the Principal Commissioner Income Tax Central-3 Mumbai-Applicant.

    2. Mr. Balbir Singh, Ld. ASG appearing for the Applicant refers to the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.09.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 3290 of 2017 in the matter of ‘Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.’ and Order dated 16.11.2021. In view of the Orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we permit the Applicant to intervene in this Appeal. I.A. No. 2720 of 2021 is allowed. Let the Copy of the Application be served to the Appellant as well as the Resolution Professional for response.

    3. These Appeals have been filed against the Order dated 22 June, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority approving the Resolution Plan. It has been submitted before us that the effective date has been fixed as 28 May, 2022 and the process of the Implementation of the Plan have begun. Learned Counsel for the Appellant expressed their apprehension that in event their claim is allowed and the plan is implemented, their claim may not be met by the Successful Resolution Applicant. We fix these Appeals on 05th July, 2022 at 02 : 00 pm and make it clear that implementation resolution plan shall abide by the result of these Appeals. Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate submits that Successful Resolution Applicant shall withhold the ‘BKC’ Property which is valuable property and till the next date, shall not take any steps for alienation of the said property.

    4. Interim Order in Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 686 of 2021 shall continue.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Association Of Aggrieved Workmen Of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. And Others
    (May 30, 2022)