Hindustan National Glass: NCLAT decides against change of RP, directs NCLT to decide on bids
NCLAT
has set aside
NCLT
's direction to change the
resolution professional
of debt-ridden Hindusthan National Glass Industries (HNG) and asked it to take a decision on the bids as per the
Supreme Court
's directions.
A three-member NCLAT bench gave a go-ahead to the Kolkata Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to decide on the approval of bids for Hindusthan National Glass Industries in accordance with the directions passed by the Supreme Court.
"The adjudicating authority (NCLT) may proceed to hear and decide the plan approval application, as per the directions of Supreme Court dated May 16, 2025," NCLAT said.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Moose Approaches Girl At Bus Stop In Dhaka - Watch What Happens
Happy in Shape
Undo
Over the resolution professional, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) said there was "no majority opinion on Point No.3, i.e. replacement of the RP".
In this matter, the Supreme Court, in a judgement on May 16, 2025 directed the lenders' body, the CoC (committee of creditors) of Hindusthan National Glass to consider for approval of the resolution plan of
Independent Sugar Corporation
Ltd within two weeks.
Live Events
The apex court has also directed NCLT to complete the
CIRP
(corporate insolvency resolution process) of Hindusthan National Glass, within six weeks from May 16.
CIRP against Hindusthan National Glass & Industries commenced on October 10, 2021 and Girish Siriram Juneja was appointed the RP.
He had issued expression of interest (EoI) inviting resolution plans, based on which bids submitted by
AGI Greenpac
was approved by the CoC with 98 per cent vote shares on October 27, 2022.
However, Soneko Marketing, an
operational creditor
of the company approached NCLT, praying for removal of the RP. Meanwhile, NCLT vide order dated April 28, 2023 approved the resolution plan of AGI Greenpac.
This was challenged before the NCLAT by several parties, including Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd, which was also a resolution applicant. The NCLAT on September 18, 2023 dismissed all petitions against NCLT order finalising
AGI Greenpac
bid.
Aggrieved by this, Soneko Marketing and Independent Sugar Corporation approached the Supreme Court, which vide its judgment on January 29, 2025, set aside the NCLT order as well as the order of appellate tribunal approving the resolution plan of AGI Greenpac.
The Supreme Court held that as prior approval by the fair trade regulator CCI as required by Section 31 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, has not been obtained by AGI Greenpac, hence its bid could not have been approved.
The apex court also issued directions to reconsider the bid of Independent Sugar Corporation or any other resolution plans that possessed the requisite CCI approval as on October 28, 2022.
Later, in consequence of the order of the Supreme Court dated January 29, 2025, the resolution plan of Independent Sugar Corporation was approved on February 4, 2025.
Meanwhile, on March 7, 2025, Soneko Marketing, the operational creditor filed an Intervention Petition seeking intervention as well as removal of the RP. However, on the plea, a two-member bench of the tribunal differed and on April 30, 2025, two separate orders were passed by judicial member and technical member.
Following this, a reference was made to the NCLT president, who referred it to a third member, who on June 10, 2025 gave its opinion. Aggrieved by these orders, appels were filed before the appellate tribunal NCLAT.
Meanwhile, a review petition was also filed before the Supreme Court for reviewing the judgment dated January 29, 2025.
Passing an order on this the apex court on May 16, 2025 directed the CoC to consider for approval of resolution plan of Independent Sugar Corporation within two weeks.
Meanwhile, the NCLAT also passed orders on Jul 8, 2025 over the removal of RP, setting aside an earlier order of NCLT in this regard.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Compromising cases by sharing comunidade land illegal, says SC
Margao: In a major blow to the practice of comunidades to settle court cases with tenants through the sharing of disputed land, the Supreme Court has held that such arrangements violate both the Tenancy Act and the Land Use Act, effectively circumventing statutory protections for agricultural land. The SC, in its judgment delivered on Monday, dismissed an appeal by the comunidade of Tivim, upholding a lower court's decision to deny permission for a proposed 60:40 land-sharing compromise with agricultural tenants. The verdict of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said that the proposed compromise terms 'fall foul of both the statutes' — the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, and the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991. The court said that such arrangements create 'freehold ownership rights over tenanted land, without resorting to the procedure contemplated for the purchase of such land by the tenant'. The arrangements, the SC said, allow parties to use agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, which is 'expressly barred by the Land Use Act'. The dispute arose over two properties, Oiteil-De-Madel and Levelechy Aradi, belonging to the comunidade of Tivim, which were leased to tenants in 1978. After the tenants' predecessor was declared an agricultural tenant by a trial court in 2017, the comunidade appealed against the decision. During the pendency of the appeal, the comunidade's general body meeting in March 2021 resolved to compromise by offering a 60:40 land division — 60% to the tenants and 40% to be retained by the comunidade. However, the administrative tribunal denied permission for this compromise under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades, which requires the tribunal's approval for any compromise involving comunidades. The high court upheld this decision, which was subsequently challenged in the SC. The apex court observed that the proposed compromise constituted an 'abuse of the process of law'. The court said that the consent terms effectively granted 'full ownership rights' to both parties and allowed them to use the land 'for any purpose whatsoever', directly violating statutory restrictions. Justice Dhulia, writing for the bench, observed that the compromise would 'wipe out tenancy rights' that were legally declared by the trial court and bypass the specific procedures laid down in the Tenancy Act for the termination of tenancy and purchase of land by tenants.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 hours ago
- Business Standard
Companies affected in IPR cases can press criminal charges as 'victim': SC
The Supreme Court has held that a company can be called a 'victim'' under the Code of Criminal Procedure and it can file an appeal against an acquittal order in criminal cases, including violations of intellectual property rights (IPRs). This means that corporate entities affected by violations of such rights could pursue criminal proceedings as the victim. A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a plea by Asian Paints, which had suffered losses due to the accused allegedly selling counterfeit paints. Asian Paints moved the apex court against the Rajasthan High Court judgment dismissing its appeal against the acquittal of Ram Babu, who was allegedly found selling counterfeit paints under the brand name 'Asian Paints'. The High Court had dismissed the appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, reasoning that an agent of Asian Paints and not the company was the 'complainant' and therefore the latter couldn't file an appeal against the acquittal. The Supreme Court, while disagreeing with this reasoning, questioned whether the appellant would fall under the definition of 'victim' in terms of Section 2(wa) read with the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, or whether Section 378 of the CrPC would prevail in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The proviso to Section 372 grants victims the right to appeal against acquittal of the accused, conviction for a lesser offence, and inadequate compensation. If the court orders insufficient compensation for the victim, the victim can appeal. The apex court Bench held it was clear that 'Section 2(wa) of the CrPC has thoughtfully accorded an expansive understanding to the term 'victim' and not a narrow and restrictive meaning'. 'In the present case, there cannot be any two opinions that ultimately, it is the Appellant who has suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products being sold/attempted to be sold as having been manufactured by the Appellant. The Appellant would suffer financial loss and reputational injury if such products would be bought by the public under the mistaken belief that the same belonged to the Appellant's brand,' the judgment said. Asian Paints, a manufacturer in the paints industry for over 73 years, had engaged IPR consultancy firm M/s Solution to track and take action against counterfeiters. During a market investigation in February 2016, the firm had found counterfeit products resembling Asian Paints' trademarks at the shop Ganpati Traders in Tunga, Rajasthan, owned by Ram Babu. After police inspection, 12 buckets of allegedly fake paint were seized. The trial court acquitted Ram Babu, after which Asian Paints challenged the order in the High Court. The High Court dismissed Asian Paints' appeal.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Hindustan Motors claims WB govt seized closed plant unlawfully; unutilised land taken back: State
Hindustan Motors Ltd on Tuesday alleged that the West Bengal government unlawfully took possession of its plant in Hooghly district without notice, though the matter is pending in the Supreme Court. Responding to the accusation, a senior official said the state government had taken back 395 acres of land in 2022 from the sick company as it remained unutilised. The company was given ample opportunities to demonstrate its use, which it failed to do, the land department official told PTI. Hindustan Motors' Uttarpara plant , where the iconic Ambassador cars were manufactured, has been at the centre of a prolonged legal tussle with the state government over land rights and resumption issues. In a regulatory filing, Hindustan Motors said that on July 11, around 11 AM, government officials, accompanied by land department authorities, police personnel and others, entered the company's premises and "wrongfully seized" its property, including documents, machinery, equipment, licensed weapons and even the customs warehouse. Live Events "The suo motu action taken by the concerned department of the Government of West Bengal, despite our Special Leave Petition pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India , has caused considerable prejudice to our challenge," the company said. Hindustan Motors said it has submitted a formal complaint and protest to the Special Secretary of the state Land and Land Reforms Department, both via email and in physical form, on July 11 and again on July 14. The company claimed that the state government earlier agreed not to take any coercive action regarding the Uttarpara premises until the Supreme Court hears the matter, which is listed for July 22. The company also expressed surprise over the state's sudden move despite these discussions. Hindustan Motors ceased production at the Uttarpara factory in West Bengal in May 2014, while the state government took back 395 acres given to the company by an order dated November 9, 2022. In Uttarpara, Hindustan Motors had around 720 acres, of which a land parcel of 314 acres was sold to Sriram group in 2009 at Rs 285 crore for real estate development. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee earlier announced that her government faced a scarcity of land for industry and decided to take back industrial land lying unutilised to allot it to new entrepreneurs. "The land was earlier held by Hindustan Motors, but the government resumed it as it was not utilised and held unproductive," a state land department official said. The Calcutta High Court in May dismissed the writ petition filed by Hindustan Motors Ltd, which had challenged the order of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal upholding the State's resumption of 395 acres of land under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The court ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief and affirmed the state government's authority to resume the land. A subsequent request for a stay on the judgment was also rejected. When contacted, an official from C K Birla group expressed wonder at the development but refused to comment. The state government had entered into a 99-year lease agreement with Titagarh Rail Systems Ltd for approximately 40 acres of contiguous land at Mouza Kotrung and Mouza Bhadrakali, Uttarpara, at a consideration of Rs 126.63 crore. Titagarh had said this strategic land parcel will facilitate the establishment of additional production infrastructure and dedicated areas for forming, testing, and commissioning of Metro coaches and Vande Bharat trains. This will include a test track for conducting dynamic and running tests before delivery. The newly acquired land is contiguous to Titagarh's existing 34-acre Uttarpara facility and is considered critical for the company's plans to expand its passenger rolling stock business for metro coaches, Vande Bharat trains and specialised rolling stock for the Indian defence sector . Hindustan Motors' Uttarpara plant, which was once home to the iconic Ambassador car , has been at the centre of a prolonged legal tussle with the state government over land rights and resumption issues.
