{"id":216864,"date":"2019-07-15T17:00:35","date_gmt":"2019-07-15T11:30:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=216864"},"modified":"2019-07-18T16:37:22","modified_gmt":"2019-07-18T11:07:22","slug":"nclat-jet-airways-nclt-order-declaring-insolvency-proceedings-in-netherlands-as-not-maintainable-stayed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/15\/nclat-jet-airways-nclt-order-declaring-insolvency-proceedings-in-netherlands-as-not-maintainable-stayed\/","title":{"rendered":"NCLAT | Jet Airways -\u2014 NCLT order declaring insolvency proceedings in Netherlands as not maintainable stayed"},"content":{"rendered":"

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi: <\/strong>The 3-Judge Member Bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya (Chairperson) and Justice A.I.S Cheema (Judicial Member) and Kanthi Narahari (Technical Member), while pronouncing an order in regard to the “Jet Airways” setback addressed the following question:<\/p>\n

“Whether separate proceeding(s) in ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ against common ‘Corporate Debtor’ can proceed in two different countries, one having no territorial jurisdiction over the other?”<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Further, noting the fact that separate ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’\/ liquidation proceedings have been initiated against Jet Airways (India) Limited — ‘Corporate Debtor’, the one in India and another in Netherland, the point of determination as framed was,<\/p>\n

“Whether by a Joint Agreement between the ‘Resolution Professional’ of ‘Corporate Debtor’ in India and Administrator in Netherland, as may be approved\u00a0 by Appellate Tribunal, one proceeding in India can proceed for maximization of the asset of ‘Corporate Debtor’ and balancing all stakeholders, including Indian\/Offshore\/Creditors\/Lenders”?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

State Bank of India-Respondent 1, was represented by Ramji Srinivasan, Senior Advocate along with Counsel Karan Khanna.<\/p>\n

It was directed to Respondent 1 that it may file a reply suggesting a procedure that may be followed in the facts and circumstances of the case, without any conflicting interest of stakeholders of both the countries.<\/p>\n

Tribunal directed case for admission on 21-08-2019.<\/p>\n

NCLAT also stated that during the pendency of the appeal, appellant administrator and Respondent 2 – ‘Interim Resolution Professional’ will cooperate with each other. It will be open to the appellant administrator to collate the claims of offshore creditors including ‘Financial Creditors’, ‘Operational Creditors’ and other stakeholders and forward their details to Respondent 2-‘Resolution Professional’ for purpose of preparing the Information memorandum with approval of ‘Committee of Creditors’.<\/p>\n

Counsel, Sumant Batra who appeared on behalf of appellant administrator assured that-<\/p>\n