18061-R
9th SEMESTER RGNUL MOOT COURT
EXAMINATION
BEFORE
HON’BLE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
CA No. /2022
IN
C.P. (I.B.) /ND/2021
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S HAVELLS LTD......................................................................................................................... APPLICANT 1
VERSUS
COMMITTEE OF CREDITOR OF M/S. POLYCAB LTD....................................................... RESPONDENT
AND
M/S STERLITE LTD....................................................................................................................... APPLICANT 2
VERSUS
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S POLYCAB LTD................................................................. RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
-WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................VI
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION................................................................................VIII
STATEMENT OF FACTS....................................................................................................IX
ISSUES RAISED...................................................................................................................XI
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.........................................................................................XII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..................................................................................................1
I. That the Hon’ble NCLT should allow M/s Havells Ltd. to submit the Resolution Plan 1
A. That this Hon’ble bench has the power to condone the delay for the submission of
the resolution plan...............................................................................................................1
B. That the resolution plan submitted by M/s Havells Ltd. should be considered on
merits..................................................................................................................................3
C. That the objective of the code is paramount and will supersede any regulations
framed under the code.........................................................................................................4
II. M/s Sterlite Ltd. can recover the balance amount pursuant to realization of the
security interest.....................................................................................................................6
A. That the CIRP Process and the Liquidation of the Corporate Persons are interlinked6
B. That the provisions of the IBC allow the secured creditors to realize the balance
amount pursuant to the realization of security interest.......................................................7
III. That M/s Havells Ltd. is eligible and not disqualified, under section 29A(d), to
submit the resolution plan...................................................................................................9
A. That M/s Havells Ltd. does not fall under any of the disqualification provided under
Section 29A of the IBC.......................................................................................................9
B. That Universal Cables Ltd. being a subsidiary of M/s Havells Ltd. is a connected
party to Havells Ltd..........................................................................................................10
C. That the conviction of Universal Cables Ltd., under the Kerela State Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2015 are personal in nature.................................................................10
Page| II
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS
D. That the landmark judgement, in respect of Section 29A(d), of NCLT Kolkata
Bench in the case of State Bank of India v. Electrosteel Steels Limited & Anr. would not
be applicable.....................................................................................................................13
E. That both Universal Cables Ltd. and the M/s Havells India Ltd. are separate legal
entity and totally separate and distinct taxpayers.............................................................13
PRAYER..............................................................................................................................XIV
Page| III
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS
LIST OF ABBRIEVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION
§ Section
¶/¶¶ Paragraph/Paragraphs
& And
AIR All India Reporter
Annex Annexure
Art. Article
COC Committee of Creditors
CIRP Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
Cl. Clause
Ed. Edition
Hon’ble Honourable
IBC/Code Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Id Ibidem
i.e. id est (that is)
Ltd. Limited
NCLT National Company Law Tribunal
NCLAT National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Page| IV
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS
Ors. Others
p./pp. Page/Pages
Reg. Regulation
RP Resolution Professional
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
v. Versus
vol. Volume
Page| V
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
-CASES-
1. Arcelormittal India (P) Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2019) 2 SCC 1...............................10
2. Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. v. Liquidator of M/s. Cethar Limited,
CP/511/IB/2017....................................................................................................................8
3. Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd. (2014) 9 SCC 407....................................................14
4. Binani Industries Limited v. Bank of Baroda, 2018 SCC OnLine NCLAT 565.........2, 3, 4
5. CFM Asset Reconstruction Private Limited v. S. S. Natural Resources Private Limited &
Anr, IA (IB) No.538/KB/2021.............................................................................................3
6. Essar Steel (India) Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2020) 8 SCC 531.....................................3
7. Girija Sugars and Agro Private Limited v. Pankaj Sham Joshi, 2020 SCC OnLine NCLT.
..............................................................................................................................................3
8. ICICI Bank Limited v. Unimark Remedies Ltd, 2018 SCC OnLine NCLT 27821.............1
9. ICICI Bank Limited v. Unimark Remedies Ltd, 2018 SCC OnLine NCLT 27821.............4
10. Mr. B. Pattabhiraman v. The Authorised Officer, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 9182...............8
11. Punjab National Bank v. Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd, C.P. (IB)-202(PB)/2017................2
12. RBL Bank Ltd. v. MBL Infrastructures, 2018 SCC OnLine NCLAT 168........................11
13. S.C. Sekaran v. Amit Gupta, Company Appeal(AT) (Insolvency) no. 495 & 496 of 2018.
..............................................................................................................................................6
14. Sharda Energy and Mineral Ltd. v. Impex Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd CA(IB) No.
641/KBH/2018.................................................................................................................2, 3
15. State Bank of India v. Anuj Bajpai, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1273...............................8
Page| VI
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS
16. State Bank of India v. Electrosteel Steels Limited & Anr., C.P. (I.B.) No. 361/KB/2017.
..................................................................................................................................9, 10, 13
17. Technology Development Board v Anil Goel Liquidator Of Gujarat, 2021 SCC OnLine
NCLT 7829......................................................................................................................6, 7
18. Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 613................13, 14
-PROVISIONS, REGULATIONS AND REPORTS-
1. Ministry of Corporate Affairs, The Report of the Insolvency Law Committee,
(March,2018), ¶14.6 at pp. 49 and 50...............................................................................12
2. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016,
Gazette of India, Reg. 12 cl. 2..............................................................................................6
3. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2017, No. 8, Acts of
Parliament, 2018, §5..........................................................................................................11
4. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2017, No. 26, Acts of
Parliament, 2018, §22........................................................................................................12
5. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, No. 31 of 2016, India Code (2016) §52 & §53.....6
6. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, No. 31 of 2016, India Code (2016), §29A Cl. (d).
........................................................................................................................................9, 11
7. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, No. 31 of 2016, India Code (2016), §35................7
8. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, No. 31 of 2016, India Code (2016), §36(1)(g)......7
9. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, No. 31 of 2016, India Code (2016), §53(1)(b)(ii). 7
10. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, No. 31 of 2016, India Code (2016), §53(1)(e)(ii). 7
11. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, No. 31 of 2016, India Code (2016), Schedule
Twelfth...............................................................................................................................10
Page| VII
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal at New Delhi exercises jurisdiction to hear and
adjudicate over the matter under § 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Page| VIII
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Polycab Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 based out in New
Delhi had availed various credit facilities from a total of five secured creditors with an
outstanding debt of Rs. 2000 crores. Due to adverse market conditions, M/s Polycab Ltd.
failed to clear the dues of the creditors and as a result of which M/s Finolex Co. Ltd., one
of the creditors filed an application for the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process before National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi.
2. In the COC, held on 16.02.2022, the resolution plan submitted by M/s Syska Ltd. was
accepted by a majority of 63.45% of the COC. Further, the resolution professional in
order to obtain the threshold floated the resolution plan again in the meeting of the COC.
Subsequently, the one bank named PNB Ltd. changed his dissenting vote to an assenting
vote and another bank SBI Ltd. converted his vote from assenting to dissenting.
3. An operational creditor i.e., M/s ENY Ltd. filed an objection before the NCLT for the
improper conduct of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and that the resolution
plan submitted by M/s Havells India Ltd. was not accepted by the COC as being
submitted after the deadline. Accordingly, the NCLT directed the liquidation of the
company and charged the resolution professional for breach of duty under the code.
4. The resolution plan submitted by M/s Havells India Ltd. was not considered by the COC
on the ground that one of his subsidiary companies i.e., Universal Cables Ltd. has been
convicted for an offence under the Kerala State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2015 and
imprisoned with a term of 3 years. Pursuant to which resolution applicant M/s Havells
India Ltd. submitted an application before the NCLT.
5. Due to the non-availability of a valid resolution plan, the COC by majority of 66% agreed
to liquidate the company.
6. Pursuant to passing of the resolution but before the submission of the same to the NCLT,
one of the secured creditors, i.e., M/s Sterlite Ltd. who had relinquished his security
interest applied to the resolution professional giving proof of his claim and sought the
realization of part of his claim.
Page| IX
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS
ISSUES RAISED
-ISSUE 1-
WHETHER THE NCLT CAN REJECT THE RESOLUTION PLAN SUBMITTED BY M/S. HAVELLS INDIA
LTD.?
-ISSUE 2-
WHETHER M/S. STERLITE LTD. WHO HAS REALIZED ITS SECURITY INTEREST CAN RECOVER THE
BALANCE AMOUNT?
-ISSUE 3-
WHETHER M/S. HAVELLS INDIA LTD. WOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM SUBMITTING THE
RESOLUTION PLAN?
Page| X
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. THAT THE HON’BLE NCLT SHOULD REJECT
M/S HAVELLS LTD.’S RESOLUTION PLAN
It is submitted before the court that firstly, accepting or rejecting a resolution plan is the
discretion of the Committee of Creditors which it does by taking into account a variety of
factors. Secondly, CIRP is a creditor driven process and shall be completed within due time
or such non-adherences to the laid timelines may effectively be a ground for the CoC to
reject any Resolution Plan.
II. THAT M/S STERLITE LTD. CANNOT RECOVER THE BALANCE
AMOUNT AS IT HAS REALIZED ITS SECURITY INTEREST
It is humbly submitted that IBC permits a secured creditor to recover the balance amount
after realizing its security interest given that the secured creditor has the sole charge over the
secured asset. The Respondent owing to Section 52 and 53 of the Code recognise Sterlite
Ltd.’s right to recover its balance credit during the liquidation of Polycab Ltd. being its
secured creditor. It is submitted that that Sterlite Ltd. could claim the entire balance amount
only if they satisfy the condition that they have sole charge over the secured asset been
relinquished.
[Link] M/S HAVELLS LTD. IS INELIGIBLE AND
DISQUALIFIED, UNDER SECTION 29A(D), TO
SUBMIT THE RESOLUTION PLAN
It is submitted that the Hon’ble Court shall firstly, disqualify Havells India Ltd. from being a
Resolution Applicant and secondly, support the CoC’s decision of rejecting their Resolution
Plan as their subsidiary, Universal Cables Ltd., has been convicted on charges of tax evasion
and sentenced to 3 years in prison1 and for this reason they both shall be deemed as
connected persons under the rules of the Code.
1
Moot Proposition, ⁋ 8.
Page| 11
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THE HAVELLS INDIA LTD.’S RESOLUTION PLAN SHALL BE REJECTED
BY THE NCLT
¶1. It is submitted before the court that firstly, accepting or rejecting a resolution plan is the
discretion of the Committee of Creditors which it does by taking into account a variety of
factors. Secondly, CIRP is a creditor driven process and shall be completed within due time or
such non-adherences to the laid timelines may effectively be a ground for the CoC to reject any
Resolution Plan.
1.1. That the decision of the Committee of Creditors is well-reasoned and legally sound
¶2. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that IBC under § 30(4) puts upon the CoC
an obligation to check for the most feasible Resolution Plan while also providing for an
Evaluation Matrix. CoC, in the instant case, while prioritising the interest of the creditors and to
benefit them has rejected the Resolution Plan of Havells India ltd. The apex court has also
opined that the Insolvency Resolution Process is a Committee of Creditors driven process 2 as
financial creditors are into money-lending as a full-time venture and so prudent enough to
formulate a resolution plan being thoroughly acquainted with the corporate debtor’s position.
They had performed the due-diligence and assessed the risk while executing the transaction.3
¶3. In the present case, CoC has, based on its research and analysis, decided to not accept the
resolution plan. It’s the duty of the resolution professional to make sure that only the plans that
adhere to the guidelines set by the law, shall be put forth for CoC’s consideration. Also, there is
no such set of rules on how should the CoC evaluate a plan as IBC provides complete authority
to the CoC to modify the plan and approve it as may be required on a case-to-case basis.4
¶4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further made clear the relationship between the CoC and the
NCLAT and stated that the adjudicating authority should not doubt the commercial wisdom of
CoC.5
2
K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank (2019) 12 SCC 150.
3
[Link]
essar-steel-case#_ftnref10
4
[Link]
obligatory-for-committee-of-creditors
5
Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2020) 8 SCC 531.
Page| 12
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS
¶5. Relying upon the above-mentioned reasoning, since the CoC has rejected the Resolution
Plan, after assessing it based on its commercial wisdom, the NCLAT should not decide on this
point and should likewise reject the Resolution Plan.
¶6. Thereby it is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Adjudicating Authority should
replicate the CoC’s decision of rejecting the Resolution Plan and not attempt to change or
modify it as has been an established rule by the virtue of Supreme Court’s ruling in various
cases.6 Under the insolvency regime, not every disagreement shall take the form of a legal
dispute and cannot be a ground for an appeal.7
1.2. That non-adherence to the deadline of submitting the Resolution Plan displays laxity
on petitioner’s behalf
¶7. It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Resolution Applicant’s conduct was lax and
non-serious as they didn’t adhere to the cut-off dates specified by the Resolution Professional 8
and this is further evident from the fact they didn’t ask for any extension of the deadline
whatsoever.
¶8. Moreover, as is mentioned in the code, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process has to
be completed within 180 days since the application has been admitted and so this makes it a
time bound activity9 and any non-adherence to the same is deemed to defeat the purpose. Also,
the regulations provide a model timeline and as per it, the CoC approved Resolution Plan shall
be submitted to the Adjudicating Authority within a period of 165 days from the day of
commencement pf CIRP proceedings.10
¶9. As mentioned in the facts of the case, Resolution Applicant failed to submit the Resolution
Plan within the deadline and didn’t even seek any extension thereby displaying non-serious
approach towards the process. This laxity causes unnecessary delay in the CIRP and defeats the
purpose of the Code. The CoC had taken a well-thought decision of rejecting the Resolution Plan
6
The Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Swwapnil Bhingardevay and Ors., AIR 2020 SC 4381; Swiss Ribbons
Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2019 SC 739; Kamineni Steel & Power (India) (P) Ltd. v. Indian Bank, 2018SCC
OnLine NCLAT 654.
7
India Resurgence Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Amit Metaliks Lmt. (2020) 8 SCC 531.
8
Moot Proposition ⁋
9
Section 12(1)
10
Regulation 40A Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons)
Regulations, 2016.
Page| 13
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS
proposed by Havells India Ltd.11
¶10. Hence, NCLT shouldn’t attempt to modify or overturn the decision of the CoC and should
rather affirm the stance taken by them.
11
Kotak Investment Advisors Limited v. Krishna Chamadia, 2020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 590.
Page| 14
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS
2. STERLITE LTD. HAS REALIZED ITS SECURITY INTEREST AND CANNOT
RECOVER THE BALANCE AMOUNT
¶11. It is humbly submitted that IBC permits a secured creditor to recover the balance amount
after realizing its security interest given that the secured creditor has the sole charge over the
secured asset.
2.1. Sterlite Ltd. are authorised under the Code to recover the balance amount post
realisation of security interest
¶12. The Respondent owing to Section 52 and 53 of the Code 12, recognise Sterlite Ltd.’s right to
recover its balance credit during the liquidation of Polycab Ltd. being its secured creditor.
¶13. Furthermore, the Respondent can, (a) give up its security interest and claim from the
liquidation estate of Polycab Ltd., where the claim would rank second among the claimants and
pari passu with the workmen of the company under liquidation, or (b), enforce its security
interest outside the liquidation process where it shall rank fifth on the distribution waterfall.13
¶14. For Sterlite Ltd. to exercise the aforesaid options, they would either have to prove their
claim if surrendering its security for the creditors’ general benefit, or prove the balance due to it
if it chooses to enforce its security outside the liquidation process.14
¶15. In the instant case, Sterlite Ltd. has relinquished the balance amount of its claim in the
favour of the liquidation estate having realised a part of its security interest and seeks realisation
of the balance amount.15
¶16. The Adjudicating Authority has also observed in its judgement 16 that Section 52(4) of the
Code permits the secured creditor to enforce, realize, settle, compromise or deal with the secured
assets in accordance with such law as applicable to the security interest being realized and to the
secured creditor and apply the proceeds to recover the debt due to it. Since Sterlite Ltd. has
enforced its security interest and the amount realised was insufficient to cover its debt, it will be
fifth in line in the liquidation waterfall for the unrealized balance amount.17
12
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, No. 31 of 2016.
13
Id, § 52(1).
14
Id, § 172.
15
Moot Proposition, ⁋ 10.
16
Mr. Srikanth Dwarakanath vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, 2020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 997
17
Suharsh Sinha, Gausia Shaikh and Urmika Tripathi, Rights of Secured Creditors Under Indian Insolvency Law,
JGILS Working Paper No. 1 2021.
Page| 15
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS
2.2. The sole charge of the Secured Asset shall be with Sterlite Ltd
¶17. It is submitted that that Sterlite Ltd. could claim the entire balance amount only if they
satisfy the condition that they have sole charge over the secured asset been relinquished. Also,
once a secured financial creditor relinquishes its security interest over the corporate debtor’s
assets, such secured financial creditor cannot seek priority over other secured creditors in
distribution of the amount received from the sale proceeds.18
¶18. Ultimately, after relinquishing the security, Sterlite Ltd. shall receive sale proceeds on a
pro-rata basis as will the other secured creditors under Section 53 of Code. Therefore, after
relinquishing the security interest, Sterlite Ltd. cannot enforce the claim that it had first and
exclusive charge-holder with respect to the secured assets.19
¶19. The NCLAT has also maintained 20 that once secured creditors have relinquished their
security interest over the asset of the corporate debtor, they are not prioritized to receive any sum
from the sale of the secured asset, and shall be treated as per the distribution waterfall laid down
in section 53 of the IBC.
¶20. Moreover, the Apex Court has also opined 21 that CoC’s wisdom will decide what payment
is to be made to various classes of creditors, and the legislature didn’t intend to give the
dissenting financial creditor the right to claim a higher amount than the proposed receivable
liquidation value for the same class of creditors in the resolution plan.
¶21. Also, the Insolvency Law Committee Report 201822 took into consideration this issue and
observed that the principles laid down in ICICI Bank Limited v. SIDCO Leathers Limited23 would
apply to Section 53 of the Code.
The Apex Court took note of the fact that the charge-holder’s claim over secured assets is an
extension of Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act24, and the same exists even when the
debtor is undergoing liquidation. Since the Companies Act, 1956 does not provide for provisions
18
Karan Kanwal, Concept of Relinquishment of Security Interest Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016,
MONDAQ (July 03, 2020), [Link]
relinquishment-of-security-interest-under-the-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016.
19
Arvind Tiwari, The Conundrum of Inter-se Priorities between Secured Creditors in Liquidation, INDIACORPLAW
(July 21, 2022), [Link]
[Link].
20
Technology Development Board v. Anil Goel, 2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 349.
21
India Resurgence ARC Private Limited v. Amit Metaliks Limited, 2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 64.
22
Report of the Insolvency Law Committee, INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA (March, 2018),
[Link]
23
ICICI Bank Limited v. SIDCO Leathers Limited, (2006) 10 SCC 452.
24
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, § 48.
Page| 16
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS
dealing with statutory and contractual rights among secured creditors, the general provisions
creating a statutory right would prevail in the event of liquidation. The Report further stated that
the principle laid down in SIDCO Leathers is applicable even in situations where the secured
creditors have relinquished their security interest.
¶22. The reasoning given was that secured creditors fall under Section 53(1)(b)(ii) of the Code
and are different from unsecured creditors. As per the Report, the reason for the same was to
protect the security interest of secured creditors during liquidation and to encourage
relinquishment.25 Therefore, Sterlite Ltd. post relinquishing its security interest, can claim the
balance amount, but that will not oblige the liquidator to pay Sterlite Ltd. the entire balance
amount due.
3. THAT M/S HAVELLS LTD. IS INELIGIBLE AND DISQUALIFIED, UNDER
SECTION 29A(D), TO SUBMIT THE RESOLUTION PLAN
¶23. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Court shall firstly, disqualify Havells India Ltd. from being a
Resolution Applicant and secondly, support the CoC’s decision of rejecting their Resolution Plan
as their subsidiary, Universal Cables Ltd., has been convicted on charges of tax evasion and
sentenced to 3 years in prison26 and for this reason they both shall be deemed as connected
persons under the rules of the Code.
¶24. It is further submitted that the Code explicitly bars certain categories of applicants from
submitting a Resolution Plan in case, they or anyone adjoined with them, don’t fulfil the criteria
laid down under the Code.27 Under Explanation 1 of the concerned section, any ‘Connected
Person’ shall be barred from submitting a Resolution Plan.
¶25. Section 29A(j) provides the definition of “connected individuals” as a holding, subsidiary
or associated company of that person or a related party. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has also held28 that a ‘connected person’ is someone who falls within the definition of the three
sub-clauses. The first sub-clause of Explanation 1 directs us to the three definitions of promoter,
management and control of Resolution Applicant.
¶26. The second sub-clause defines ‘connected person’ as someone who is either a promoter or in
25
Understanding the IBC: Key Jurisprudence and Practical Considerations'', INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY
BOARD OF INDIA (October, 2018), [Link]
26
Moot Proposition, ⁋ 8.
27
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 §29A.
28
Page| 17
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS
management or control of the corporate debtor’s company during the execution of the Resolution
Plan. Lastly, the third sub-clause brings into its umbrella of linked persons any holding, associate
and subsidiary company as defined in the Companies Act, 2013, as well as related parties of the
individuals in the previous two sub-clauses.
¶27. Therefore, Universal Cable Ltd. being a subsidiary of Havells India Ltd. would be covered
under the definition of ‘Connected Persons’ and that would make Havells India Ltd. ineligible to
be a Resolution Plan thus barring them from submitting a Resolution Plan under Section 29A of
the Code.
Page| 18
MEMORANDUM for RESONDENTS
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsels on behalf
of the Respondents humbly pray before this Hon’ble Tribunal that it may be pleased to adjudge and
declare:
a) That the Committee of Creditors had acted within the scope of law and was justified in rejecting
the Resolution Plan submitted by Havells India Ltd.
b) That Sterlite Ltd. Cannot be allowed to realize its security interest and recover the balance
amount by the Official Liquidator.
c) That the conviction of Universal Cables Ltd., a subsidiary of Havells India Ltd., under the Kerala
GST Act makes Havells India Ltd. ineligible for submitting a Resolution Plan.
AND/OR
Pass any order that the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the light of Equity, Justice and Good
Conscience.
For this act of kindness of your Lordships, the Respondents as in duty bound shall ever pray.
S/d
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
Page| XIV
