IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

AHMEDABAD
DIVISION BENCH
COURT - 1
ITEM No. 102
IA/283(AHM)2023 in
IA 832 of 2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

Order under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust ........Applicant

V/s
ArcelorMittal India (P) Ltd. & Ors. ........Respondents

Order delivered on : 17/03/2023

Coram:

Dr. Madan B. Gosavi, Hon‟ble Member(J)

Kaushalendra Kumar Singh, Hon‟ble Member(T)

PRESENT:
For the Applicant :
For the Respondent :

ORDER

The case is fixed for the pronouncement of the order. The order is
pronounced in the open court, vide separate sheet.

-SD- -SD-
KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR SINGH DR. MADAN B. GOSAVI
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Rajeev Kumar Sen/Stenographer

1|Page
 BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
COURT-I

IA/283(AHM)2023 in

IA 832 of 2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

IA/283(AHM)2023
[An application under Section 44 of the Evidence seeking recall of the order
dated 21.02.2023 passed in IA 832 of 2022]
In the matter between:
1. M/s SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD
Acting through its shareholder,
Mr. Vir Jai Khosla, Applicant No. 2.
Petitioner No. 1 having its office at :
Vishwakarma Building
86-C Topsia Road (South)
KOLKATA – 700 046
Email of the shareholder :
virjaikhosla@gmail.com

2. Mr. VIR JAI KHOSLA

D-328 Defence Colony
NEW DELHI – 110 024
Email : virjaikhosla@gmail.com;
….… Applicants
Versus

1. ARCELORMITTAL INDIA (P) LTD

Having its office at :
Smarkworks Corporate Park,
Corporate Twin Towers, Tower A
4th Floor, Sector 125
Plot No. 1 & 2
NOIDA – 201 301, U.P.
Email : java.joshi@arcelormittal.com;

2. DEVINDER SINGH ARORA

Authorised Signatory of AMIPL
in I.A. No. 245 of 2020
in C.P. (IB) 40 of 2017
Working for gain at :
Smarkworks Corporate Park,
Corporate Twin Towers, Tower A
4th Floor, Sector 125
2|Page
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

Plot No. 1 & 2

NOIDA – 201 301, U.P.
Also at:
Plaza M-6, 6th Floor, Unit C & D,
Jasola District Centre,
NEW DELHI – 110 025
Email : java.joshi@arcelormittal.com

3. ARCELOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LTD (earlier known as ESSAR

Steels India Ltd)
Having its office at :
27TH Km, Hazira Road
Hazira,
SURAT – GUJARAT- 392 470
Email : pankaj.chourasia@amns.in; aswaroop@luthra.com;
nbagga@luthra.com;

4. Mr. RAJESH PRABHAKAR RAKTATE

Authorised Signatory of AMNSIL
in I.A. No. 245 of 2020
in C.P. (IB) 40 of 2017
Having its office at :
27TH Km, Hazira Road
Hazira,
SURAT – GUJARAT- 392 470
Also at:
2nd Floor, Birla Centurion,
Pandurang Budhakar Marg,
Worli Century Mills Compound,
Mumbai – 400 030
Email: pankaj.chourasia@amns.in;
aswaroop@luthra.com;
nbagga@luthra.com

5. Mr. DILIP OOMMEN

Director
ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd
AMNS House
AMNS Township
27th Km, Surat-Hazira Road
Hazira
SURAT – 394270
GUJARAT
Email : dilip.oommen@amns.in;
c/o pankaj.chourasia@amns.in;

6. Mr. SURESH JAIN

CFO of ESIL (as it was then known,
now known as Arcelor-Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd)

3|Page
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

for FY 2016-17 and FY 2021-22]

c/o Arcelor-Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd
Having its office at :
27TH KM, Hazira Road
Hazira
SURAT – GUJARAT- 392 470
Also at :
B-3002, 30th Floor,
Plot CS No- 77, B wing,
One Avighna Park,
Mahadev Palav Marg,
Curry Road,
Parel
MUMBAI - 400 012
Email : c/o suresh.jain@amns.in;
pankaj.chourasia@amns.in;

7. Mr. RAJIV KUMAR BHATNAGAR

(Director Projects)
[Director of ESIL (as it was then known, now known as Arcelor-Mittal
Nippon Steel India Ltd) for FY 2016-17 and FY 2021-22]
c/o Arcelor-Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd
Having its office at :
27TH KM, Hazira Road
Hazira
SURAT – GUJARAT- 392 470 :
Also at;
C2/11, Nand Niketan
Essar Township,
Hazira,
SURAT - 394 270
Email : c/o pankaj.chourasia@amns.in;

8. Mr. MAHADEV IYER

(Director Finance and CFO)
[Director of ESIL (as it was then known, now known as Arcelor-Mittal
Nippon Steel India Ltd) for FY 2016-17 and FY 2021-22]
c/o Arcelor-Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd
Having its office at :
27TH KM, Hazira Road
Hazira
SURAT – GUJARAT- 392 470
Also at:
109/110, Indira Apartments,
Govandi Station Road,
Deonar,
MUMBAI - 400 088
Email : c/o pankaj.chourasia@amns.in;

4|Page
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

9. Mr. PANKAJ SHIVNARAYAN CHOURASIA

Director
ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd
AMNS House, AMNS Township
27th Km, Surat-Hazira Road
Hazira, SURAT – 394270
GUJARAT
Email : pankaj.chourasia@amns.in;

10. M/s M. M. CHATURVEDI & Co

Chartered Accountants
Statutory Auditors of ESSAR Steel India Ltd between 2016-2020
24 Atlanta, Nariman Point
MUMBAI – 400 021
Email : admin@mmcandco.com;

11. Mr. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA

Resolution Professional of ESSAR Steel India Ltd
having his address at :
c/o Alvarez Marsal India (P) Ltd
7th Floor, 703-704, Tower „A‟
Peninsula Corporate Park
Ganpatrao Kadam Marg
Lower Parel (West)
MUMBAI – 400 013
Also at :
Flat No. 17-12, Building No. 17
Kohinoor City, Phase – II
Off LBS Road
MUMBAI – 400 070
Email : satishg196@yahoo.co.in;
satishg196@outlook.com;

12. Mr. KALYAN GHOSH

Director
Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infrastructure
Ltd.,
H. No 119, Ward No. 11
Badahal Road
Behind Indian Bank
NH-6, Keonjhar – 758 001
ODISHA
Also at :
A-3/304, Tower 3
Silver City, Sector 93
Noida, Distt. Gautam Budha Nagar
U.P.
Email : kalyan.ghosh@arcelorMittal.com

5|Page
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

13. Mr. SANJAY SHARMA

Director
Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infrastructure Ltd
H. No 119, Ward No. 11
Badahal Road,
Behind Indian Bank
NH-6, Keonjhar – 758 001
ODISHA
Email : Sanjay.sharma@arcelorMittal.com;

14. Mr. HIDEKI OGAWA

Director
Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infrastructure Ltd,
and Director, ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd
H. No 119, Ward No. 11
Badahal Road
Behind Indian Bank
NH-6, Keonjhar – 758 001
ODISHA
Email : ogawa.eb6.hideki@jp.nipponsteel.com

15. Mr. HIROSHI EBINA

Director
Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infrastructure Ltd,
and Director, ArcelorMittal
Nippon Steel India Ltd
H. No 119, Ward No. 11
Badahal Road
Behind Indian Bank
NH-6, Keonjhar – 758 001
ODISHA
Also at :
D-1/39 2nd Floor
Vasant Vihar, NEW DELHI – 110 057
Email : ebina.gg6.hiroshi@in.nipponsteel.com

16. Mr. HIRANMOY BISWAS

(Nominee of IDBI Bank upto 27-11-2016)
(Director of Arcelor-Mittal Nippon Steel India
Ltd for FY 2016-17 and FY 2021-22)
c/o IDBI Bank Ltd
IDBI Tower, World Trade Center Complex,
Cuffe Parade, Colaba,
MUMBAI – 400 005
Email : c/o pankaj.chourasia@amns.in;
c/o cmd@idbibank.co.in; ibkl0000135@idbi.co.in

6|Page
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

17. Mr. ALOKE SENGUPTA

Nominee Director of IDBI Bank Ltd on the
Board of Directors of Arcelor-Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd
c/o IDBI Bank Ltd
IDBI Tower, World Trade Center Complex,
Cuffe Parade, Colaba, MUMBAI – 400 005
Email : c/o cmd@idbibank.co.in; ibkl0000135@idbi.co.in

18. ALVAREZ & MARSAL INDIA (P) LTD

Acting through its Managing Director (India), Mr. Manish Saigal
7th Floor, 703-704, Tower „A‟
Peninsula Corporate Park
Ganpatrao Kadam Marg
Lower Parel (West)
MUMBAI – 400 013
Email : msaigal@alvarezandmarsal.com

19. Mr. VIKRAM UTAMSINGH

Managing Director of ALVAREZ & MARSAL INDIA (P) LTD
7th Floor, 703-704, Tower „A‟
Peninsula Corporate Park
Ganpatrao Kadam Marg
Lower Parel (West)
MUMBAI – 400 013
Email : vutamsingh@alvarezandmarsal.com

20. Mr. VIVEK KAMRA

Managing Director of ALVAREZ &
MARSAL INDIA (P) LTD
AND Interim Chief Restructuring Officer
7th Floor, 703-704, Tower „A‟
Peninsula Corporate Park
Ganpatrao Kadam Marg
Lower Parel (West)
MUMBAI – 400 013
Email : vkamra@alvarezandmarsal.com

21. Mr. ASHISH CHHAWCHHARIA

Resolution Professional of Odisha Slurry
Pipeline Infrastructure Ltd
Having his address at :
10-C Hungerford Street, 5th Floor
Near Birla High School
Elgin, KOLKATA – 700 017
Email : ashish@bccoindia.com;
ashish.chhawchharia@in.gt.com;
rp.ospil@in.gt.com;

7|Page
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

22. GT RESTRUCTURING SERVICES LLP

L-41,Connaught Circus
NEW DELHI – 110 001
Also at :
Indiabulls Finance Center
Senapati Bapat Marg
Fitwala Road
Lower Paresl (West)
MUMBAI – 400 013
Also at :
10-C Hungerford Street, 5th Floor
Near Birla High School
Elgin, KOLKATA – 700 017
Email : ashish.chhawchharia@in.gt.com

23. Mr. ADITYA KHANNA

Grant Thornton India
L-41,Connaught Circus
NEW DELHI – 110 001
Also at :
10-C Hungerford Street, 5th Floor
Near Birla High School
Elgin, KOLKATA – 700 017
Email : Aditya.khanna@in.gt.com

24. Mr. SANJAY MISHRA

Grant Thornton India
L-41, Connaught Circus
NEW DELHI – 110 001
Also at :
10-C Hungerford Street, 5th Floor
Near Birla High School
Elgin, KOLKATA – 700 017
Email : Sanjay.mishra@in.gt.com

25. Mr. SUMEET ABROL

Grant Thornton India
L-41,Connaught Circus
NEW DELHI – 110 001
Also at :
10-C Hungerford Street, 5th Floor
Near Birla High School
Elgin
KOLKATA – 700 017
Email : Sumeet.abrol@in.gt.com

26. SREI MULTIPLE ASSET INVESTMENT TRUST,

acting through its sole trustee, NEELINA CHATTERJEE.
Further acting through:
8|Page
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

M/s. TRINITY ALTERNATE INVESTMENT

MANAGERS LIMITED (Formerly, SREI Alternate
Investment Managers Limited)
Having its Office at:
Unit No 709, Merlin Infinite, 7th Floor, DN-51, Sector -V,
Salt Lake City
KOLKATA - 700 091
Email: shilpa.modi@taiml.co.in

27. Mr. SAPAN GUPTA

Group General Counsel
ARCELORMITTAL SA
Having its office at :
Berkeley Square House,
London W1J 6DA
United Kingdom
Email : sapan.gupta@arcelormittal.com

28. Mr. LAKSHMI NIWAS MITTAL

Chairman & CEO, ArcelorMittal SA
24-26, Boulevard d‟Avranches
L-1160 Luxembourg
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Also resident at :
Lakshmi Niwas
22 Aurangzeb Road
NEW DELHI – 110 011
Email : lakshmi.Mittal@arcelorMittal.com

29. Mr. ADITYA MITTAL

Director
ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd
AMNS House, AMNS Township
27th Km, Surat-27th Km, Hazira Road
Hazira, SURAT – 394270
GUJARAT
Also resident at :
Lakshmi Niwas
22 Aurangzeb Road
NEW DELHI – 110 011
Email : aditya.Mittal@arcelorMittal.com

30. IDBI BANK LTD

Having its Registered Office at:
209A, Sarat Bose Road
KOLKATA
WEST BENGAL – 700 029
Head office:
IDBI Tower,
9|Page
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

World Trade Center Complex,

Cuffe Parade, Colaba,
MUMBAI – 400 005
Email : cmd@idbibank.co.in; ibkl0000135@idbi.co.in;
Jitendra.joshi@idbibank.co.in

31. ALLAHABAD BANK

Acting through its Secretary
Registered Office :
2, Netaji Subhas Road, KOLKATA – 700 01
Also at :
1A, Ronaldshay Road,
KOLKATA – 700 027
Email : br.mumifb@allahabadbank.in;
investors.grievance@allahabadbank.in

32. CANARA BANK

Acting through its Secretary
Registered Office :
112, J.C. Road, Bengaluru Karnataka – 560 002
Also at :
2nd floor, Saket Building,
10/1/E Santi Vihar,
Diamond Harbour Rd,
Alipore,
KOLKATA – 700 027
Email : akpandey@canarabank.com; hosecretarial@canarabank.com;

33. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

Acting through its Secretary
Registered Office :
9th Floor, Chandermukhi,
Nariman Point, MUMBAI – 400 021
Also at :
597 O-Block
Nalini Ranjan- Sarkar Avenue,
New Alipore
KOLKATA – 700 053
Email : cfbcbi@gmail.com; investors@centralbank.co.in

34. CORPORATION BANK

Acting through its Secretary
Registered Office :
Mangaladevi Temple Road,
Mangaluru Karnataka – 575 001
Also at :
H4 Lakhmani Mansion,
BM Sarani, New Alipore,
KOLKATA 700 053
10 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

Email : cb0443@corpbank.co.in; cb1129@corpbank.co.in

35. EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION Co. LTD

(EARC TRUST – SC 233)
Edelweiss House, off CST Road, Kalina, Santacruz,
MUMBAI – 400 098
Email : Srinath.narasimhan@edelweissfin.com;
Nivedita.shetty@edelweissarc.in

36. HDFC BANK

Acting through its Secretary
Registered Office :
HDFC Bank House
Senapati Bapat Marg
Lower Parel (West)
MUMBAI – 4000 13
Also at :
174 A, Ground Flr,
Block G, New Alipore,
KOLKATA – 700 053
Email : conrad@hdfcbank.com;
santosh.haldankar@hdfcbank.com

37. ICICI BANK

Acting through its Secretary
Registered Office :
ICICI Bank Tower,
Near Chakli Circle,
Old Padra Road
Vadodara - 390 007
Also at :
Alipore, 3-C,
National Library Ave,
Near Kothari Hospital,
KOLKATA – 700 027
Email : bihag.jani@icicibank.com;
companysecretary@icicibank.com

38. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

Acting through its Secretary
Registered Office :
Agri Business Consultancy Services, (ABC Services) Central Office, 6th
Floor, Annex Building, 763, Anna Salai, CHENNAI - 600 002
Also at :
P 23a, 594, Tolasaria Sadan,
Diamond Harbour Road
Block O, New Alipore,
KOLKATA – 700 053
Email : iob0625@iob.in; iobmail@vsnl.com
11 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

39. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD

Acting through its Secretary
Registered Office :
Gunfoundry,
Hybank Tower
HYDERABAD – 500 001
Also at :
P & SB Branch
173 Sarat Bose Road
KOLKATA – 700 029
Email : mysbh@sbhyd.co.in;

40. STATE BANK OF INDIA

Acting through its Secretary / Director
Project Finance SBU
Voltas House, 2nd Floor
23, J. N. Heredia Marg
Ballard Estate, Fort,
MUMBAI – 400 001
Having its Regional Office at :
24/1/1, Alipur Rd, Alipore
KOLKATA
WEST BENGAL 700 027
Email : team2.61341@sbi.co.in;
sbi.00001@sbi.co.in;

41. SYNDICATE BANK

Acting through its Secretary
Registered Office :
Manipal – 576 106 KARNATAKA
Also at :
8 B, Alipur Rd,
Alipore,
KOLKATA – 700 027
Email : br.5088@syndicatebank.co.in;
coplan@syndicatebank.co.in;

42. UCO BANK

Having its Registered Office at :
70A, 1st Floor, Block D,
New Alipore
KOLKATA - 700 053
Email : mum.fcc@ucobank.co.in;
hocompliance.calcutta@ucobank.co.in

12 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

GROUP III - OTHER LENDERS TO ESIL (BUT NOT TO OSPIL) :-

43. AXIS BANK

Acting through its Secretary
Registered Office :
TRISHUL - 3rd Floor, Opp. Samartheshwar Temple,
Law Garden,
Ellisbridge,
AHMEDABAD - 380 006
Also at :
No 60, Bankim Mukherjee Sarani,
New Alipore,
KOLKATA – 700 053
Email : shareholders@axisbank.com

44. BANK OF BARODA

Acting through its Secretary
Registered Office :
Baroda House,
Mandvi, BARODA – 390 001
Also at :
38/1E, Gopalnagar Rd,
Alipore,
KOLKATA – 700 027
Email : gm.ops.ho@bankofbaroda.com

45. BANK OF INDIA

Having its Regional Office at :
23-B, Ground Floor, Baker Road
Alipore, KOLKATA – 700 027
Email : Boi.neft@bankofindia.co.in;
BOI.CallCentre@bankofindia.co.in

46. DEUTSCHE BANK

(Assignee from Bank of Baroda and IDBI Bank)
Acting through its Secretary
Registered Office :
Deutsche Bank AG
Corporate Headquarters in India Deutsche Bank House,
Hazarimal Somani Marg
Fort, MUMBAI - 400 001
Also at :
Brooke House,
9, Shakespeare Sarani Road,
Kankaria Estates,
Park Street area,
KOLKATA – 700 071
Email : customer.care@db.com

13 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

47. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF INDIA

Acting through its Secretary
Registered Office :
Centre One Building,
Floor 21,
World Trade Centre Complex,
Cuffe Parade,
MUMBAI 400 005
Also at :
1, Park Street,
Vanijya Bhawan, 4th Floor,
KOLKATA – 700 016
Email : ccg@eximbankindia.in;

48. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Having its Regional Office at :
Unit House P 140, Mani Aangan,
Block B, New Alipore
KOLKATA - 700 053
Email : zokolkata@pnb.co.in

49. SC LOWY PRIMARY INVESTMENTS LTD

(assigned from HDFC Bank and AXIS Bank)
Acting through its Secretary
Registered Office :
C/o Intertrust Corporate Services,
One Nexus Way, Camana Bay,
Grand Cayman,
CAYMAN ISLANDS KY1-9005
Email : info@sclowy.com

50. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

Acting through its Secretary
Registered Office :
Standard Chartered Bank,
1 Basinghall Avenue,
LONDON - EC2V 5DD
Also at :
17, S.A, Nalini Ranjan Ave,
Block A, Uttar Raypur,
New Alipore,
KOLKATA – 700 053
Email : Customer.Care@sc.com

51. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

Acting through its Secretary
Registered Office :
225 Liberty Street, New York,
NY 10286, USA
14 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

Also at :
BNY Mellon Centre
160 Queen Victoria Street
LONDON - EC4V 4LA,
ENGLAND
Email : Linda.McMahon@bnymellon.com

52. UNION BANK OF INDIA

Acting through its Secretary / Director
MUMBAI – 400 001
Having its Regional Office at :
Alepee Court, 1st Floor,
225C A J C Bose Road,
KOLKATA – 700 017
Email : rokolkata@unionbankofindia.com

53. M/s SHARDUL AMARCHAND MANGALDAS

(Legal Advisers to the COC of ESIL as well as OSPIL)
Solicitors and advocates
Acting through their Managing Partner, Mr. Shardul Shroff
Express Towers, 23rd Floor,
Nariman Point,
MUMBAI – 400 021
Also at :
Anand Lok, 227
A.J.C. Bose Road
KOLKATA – 700 020
Email: shardul.shroff@AMSShardul.com

54. M/s CYRIL AMARCHAND MANGALDAS

(Legal Advisers to the RP of ESIL)
Solicitors and advocates
Acting through their Managing Partner, Mr. Cyril Shroff
Peninsula Chambers,
Peninsula Corporate Park, GK Marg,
Lower Parel,
MUMBAI – 400 013
Email: cyril@cyrilshroff.com;
cyril.shroff@cyrilshroff.com;
cam.mumbai@cyrilshroff.com;
l.viswanathan@cyrilshroff.com

55. MR. DHANANJAY KUMAR

Partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
Peninsula Chambers,
Peninsula Corporate Park, GK Marg,
Lower Parel,
MUMBAI – 400 013

15 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

Email: cyril@cyrilshroff.com;
cyril.shroff@cyrilshroff.com;
cam.mumbai@cyrilshroff.com;
dhananjay.kumar@cyrilshroff.com

56. MR. L. VISHWANATHAN

Partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
Peninsula Chambers,
Peninsula Corporate Park, GK Marg,
Lower Parel,
MUMBAI – 400 013
l.viswanathan@cyrilshroff.com

57. Mr. RAJNEESH SHARMA

Ld. Administrator
M/s SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD
Vishwakarma Building
86-C Topsia Road (South)
KOLKATA – 700 046
Email: sreiadministrator@srei.com
….Respondents

In the matter of :

IA 832 of 2022

[An application under Section 340 of CrPC r.w. Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016
seeking prosecution for Perjury committed before this Tribunal (NCLT
Ahmedabad Bench, Court-1) in terms of false affidavits filed in 2017-18 (IA 419
of 2017) and in 2020 (IA 245 of 2020)]

SREI MULTIPLE ASSET INVESTMENT TRUST

….Applicant
Versus

ARCEORMITTAL INDIA (P) LTD AND ORS.

….Respondents
IN

16 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

[An application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016]
In the matter of

STATE BANK OF INDIA

….FINANCIAL CREDITOR
Versus

ESSAR STEELS INDIA LTD.

….CORPORATE DEBTOR

Order reserved on: 14.03.2023

Order pronounced on: 17.03.2023

Coram: Dr. MADAN B. GOSAVI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Present:

For the Applicant : Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate along with Mr.
Rohan S. Nandy, Advocate

: Mr. Monaal J Davawala, Advocate (for SMAIT)

For the Respondents : Mr. Nirupam Nanavati, Sr. Advocate along with
Mr. Nachiket Dave, Advocate (for AMIPL i.e, R-1)
: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Advocate a.w.
Mr. Nirag Pathak, Ms. Ruby Ahuja, Ms. Akriti
Vora, Mr. Vishal Gehrana, Mr. Ashim Sood, Mr.
Ashutosh Shukla, Mr. Varun Khanna Advocates
(for R-3 i.e. AMNSIL)

: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India and

Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. Advocate along
with Mr. S. Biswas, Mr. Siddhant Kant, Mr.
Parth Gokhale, Ms. Grishma Ahuja, Mr. Shalin
Jani, Mr. Sidhant Kant Advocates for IDBI
17 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

Bank, ICICI Bank, Edelweiss, SBI and State

Bank of Hyderabad)

: Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Advocate a.w. Mr. Parth

Shah, Advocate (for R-54)

: Mr. Gaurav Mathur, Advocate (for Administrator

of SIFL)
: Mr. Ujas Patel a.w. Mr. Soham Banerjee,
Advocates (for R-1, R-18)

: Mr. Vividh Tandon, a.w. Ms. Tanya Shah,

Advocate (for R-19, R-20)

: Mr. Manav Gupta, Mr. Senu Nizar, Mr. Siddhant

Kant, Mr. Varun Khanna, Advocates

ORDER

1. This application is filed by the applicant under section 44 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seeking recall of order dated 21.02.2023 in IA
No. 832 of 2022 in Company Petition (IB) No. 40/(AHM) of 2017 on the
ground that the said order dated 21.02.2023 has been obtained by the
respondents by practice of fraud and is passed without jurisdiction.

2. The IA No. 832 of 2022 was filed by SREI Multiple Asset Investment
Trust (SMAIT) before this Adjudicating Authority on or around 13.10.2022
against as many as 25 respondents to initiate the prosecution under
various penal sections of Indian Penal Code by following the procedure laid
down under section 340 of CrPC, 1973 for the perjury committed before
this Adjudicating Authority in terms of false affidavits filed in 2017-18 (IA
No. 419 of 2017) and in 2020 (IA No. 245 of 2020).

3. It is submitted that this Adjudicating Authority without issuing

formal notice to the persons named as defendants/prospective accused
instead adopted a procedure unknown to law, namely, it chose to hear
learned senior counsels for some of the respondents in IA No. 832 of 2022;
that such an approach is unconditionally, strictly prohibited, and on the
18 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

basis of these oral submissions (many of which were false, and worse, not
supported by averments made by the respondents on affidavit on record
before this Adjudicating Authority). This Adjudicating Authority chose to
reject this application vide order dated 21.02.2023 which is sought to be
recalled by way of this application.

4. It is submitted that this rejection of the application was by adopting

a view that there was substance in the contentions of the Respondents that
since Essar Steels India Limited (ESIL) had taken the stand in title suit no.
177 of 2016 to the effect that the pipeline was an asset of ESIL, and since
the determination of title was still pending before the learned Civil Judge at
Sealdah, for ESIL and the other respondents to have stated before this
Adjudicating Authority that the pipeline, even during the Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of ESIL, is an asset of ESIL which is
not reflected on their part, much less the committal to criminal trial for
perjury, leading to conclusions in paragraphs 17 and 35 of its order dated
21.02.2023 by this Adjudicating Authority.

5. It is submitted that the order dated 21.02.2023 is a nullity in law,

and the applicant is entitled to file the present application under section 44
of the Indian Evidence, Act 1872 to seek recall of the order dated
21.02.2023 on multiple counts, as listed below:

I. A false statement was orally made across the bar by learned

senior counsel appearing for ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited
(AMNSIL) which is mentioned in paragraphs 17 and 38 of the order
dated 21.02.2023 passed by this Adjudicating Authority to the effect
that ESIL had taken the stand in the civil suit pending before the
learned Civil Court at Sealdah that the pipeline belongs to ESIL
because the cancellation deed dated 24.06.2016 had gone into effect
as of 30.06.2016. This statement is not just false, but is so false that
it warrants prosecution for perjury.

19 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

II. It has been falsely stated by the learned senior counsel

appearing for AMNSIL that according to him, in fact, the entire
Resolution Plan was submitted and approved by the Committee of
Creditors (CoC) with the clear understanding that the dispute of the
title of the slurry pipeline has been wrongly raised. This is a false
statement apart from the fact that it is not based upon any statement
made on affidavit on the record before this Adjudicating Authority.
Furthermore, it does not lie in the mouth of the learned senior counsel
appearing for AMNSIL to make such a statement on behalf of the
members of CoC of ESIL.

III. A false statement was orally made by learned senior counsel

appearing for AMNSIL to the effect that “it is the assertion of all the
stakeholders involved in the CIRP of Essar Steel that there is no
dispute about the title of the pipeline”. This statement is also false,
and moreover, is not borne out from record, rather is contradicted by
the record of this Adjudicating Authority, which perhaps through
oversight has not been perused by this Tribunal while dictating the
order dated 21.02.2023.

IV. A false statement was orally made by the learned senior counsel
appearing for AMNSIL which is mentioned in paragraphs 10, 17, 30(I),
and 35 of the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by this Adjudicating
Authority to the effect that the Title Suit no. 177 of 2016 is still
pending before the learned Civil Court at Sealdah. This statement is
false, as the aforementioned suit was dismissed for non-prosecution
on 09.01.2023, a fact surely known to AMNSIL.

V. It is also suppression of equally vital and material fact that

Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infrastructure Limited (OSPIL) has filed an
application dated 16.06.2021 before the learned Civil Court at
Sealdah, praying for dismissal of the Title Suit filed by SREI
Infrastructure Finance Limited (SIFL) on the grounds that as per order
dated 02.03.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority at Cuttack,

20 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

the suit has been declared/directed as abated, and then another

application had been filed subsequently on 07.03.2022 praying that
the earlier application dated 16.06.2021 be expeditiously decided and
the title suit be dismissed. Thereafter, in December 2022 because of
the pendency of these proceedings, a third application was filed in
conspiracy with respondent no. 57 i.e., Mr. Rajneesh Sharma seeking
expeditious disposal of the application dated 16.06.2021 and also for
dismissal of title suit for non-prosecution by SIFL, which came up for
hearing on that date and was posted for final orders on 09.01.2023.
There was no turning up on account of SIFL. Hence, the suit was
dismissed for non-prosecution. Such statement which was made was
a false statement which was made consciously and deliberately.

VI. Under section 340 of the CrPC, there is no jurisdiction to

conduct a mini trial by adjudicating rival contentions. It is strictly
prohibited and the Court or Tribunal that acts so, acts not only
without jurisdiction but violates the law settled by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

VII. This Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to encourage

committal of contempt of another court (High Court of Calcutta),
especially in terms of finding delivered by this Adjudicating Authority
vide its order dated 07.02.2023, where, in paragraph 64, 70, 72, it
unequivocally held that the of the injunction is that there is a stay
against operation of the Cancellation Deed dated 24.06.2016 and that,
therefore, the pipeline continues to be the property of OSPIL.

VIII. This Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to encourage

committal of contempt of its own order dated 07.02.2018. While,
paragraph 31 of the order dated 21.02.2023 clearly records a finding by
this Adjudicating Authority that it is of the view that contempt has been
committed by the Resolution Professional (RP) of ESIL, but the

21 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

Adjudicating Authority has chosen to remain a mute spectator which is

actually giving benefit to the RP for committing contempt of itself.

IX. This Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to conduct a

review of the view adopted by this Adjudicating Authority in paragraphs
64, 70, 72 and 81 of its order dated 07.02.2018 passed in IA No. 419 of
2017.

X. This Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to grant

declaratory relief under section 340 of the CrPC which is precisely
granted in paragraph 25, which is also a review of the order dated
07.02.2018 read with order dated 10.11.2020.

XI. This Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to conduct a

review of the view adopted by this Adjudicating Authority in its order
dated 10.11.2020 passed in IA No. 245 of 2020.

XII. This Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to conduct a

preliminary enquiry before coming to a finding that prima facie, the
offence of perjury appears to have been committed, and, moreover, the
preliminary enquiry is to be conducted by a 3rd entity, and the purpose
of the enquiry is for only assessing whether adequate evidence exists
that shall ensure that it is expedient in the interest to commit to trial for
an enquiry and not to decide whether an offence appears to have been
committed and that too, by affording a hearing to the prospective
accused through back door and that too not on affidavit.

XIII. The paragraphs 19 to 22 of the order dated 21.02.2023 clearly

reveal a constructive breach of Audi Alterum Partum.

6. The application was listed in priority on the basis of the request made
by the learned counsel Mr. Deepak Khosla appearing for the applicant. We
heard him in detail. The pleadings made by him and the various rulings
cited by him is on the issue of recall of an order which somehow has been

22 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

obtained through fraud. All that can be relevant if the decision given by us
vide order dated 21.02.2023 indeed has been based on any fraudulent
facts. Nevertheless we heard him patiently for the two consecutive days
that to when one of us is demitting office on 17.03.2023 and little time is
left for us to complete the other pending cases.

7. During the course of hearing, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior

counsel appearing for one of respondents objected to the maintainability of
the application on the ground that the applicants in IA No. 832 of 2022, to
which the order dated 21.02.2023 relates to, were different from the
applicant in the recall application. He pointed out that the applicant in IA
No. 832 of 2022 was SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust (SMAIT) acting
through its sole trustee, Ms. Neelina Chaterjee, further acting through its
investment manager Trinity Alternate Investment Managers Limited
whereas the recall application under reference is filed by M/s. SREI
Infrastructure Finance Limited (SIFL) being applicant no. 1 acting through
its shareholder Mr. Vir Jai Khosla and having the “derivative rights” over
SIFL, and Mr. Vir Jai Khosla himself being Applicant No. 2. Dr. Singhvi
also argued and stated that even otherwise the various grounds taken by
the applicants in this recall application can be challenged by way of an
appeal in the appropriate forum and could not be the subject matter and
basis for recall as the said order under reference is based on detailed facts
as discussed therein in the context of the issue involved as to whether any
case was made out for perjury against the various respondents named
therein. He also pointed out that any such exercise of recall would amount
to “review” of the order by this Adjudicating Authority which is not
permissible. Dr. Singhvi also pointed out that various applications have
been filed on the name of different applicants on the same very issue and
that amounts to abuse of judicial process and burdening the Tribunal with
frivolous litigations. Dr. Singhvi also submitted that heavy cost must be
imposed on such applicants misusing the judicial process.

23 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

Learned senior counsel-cum-Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta also

challenged locus of the applicant to file this case and also brought to our
notice that SBI and other Banks were not party in IA No. 832 of 2022.

During the course hearing, Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, learned senior counsel
also made certain submissions about non-maintainability of present
application. Learned senior counsels Mr. Navin Pahwa and Mr. Nirupam
Nanavati also made submissions about the non-maintainability of the
application.

8. During the hearing of the case, Mr. Gaurav Mathur, learned counsel
appeared on behalf of the administrator of SIFL and stated that SIFL is
under CIRP and an administrator has been appointed by the RBI. He also
stated that the administrator of the SIFL has not appointed Mr. Deepak
Khosla, learned counsel to file any such recall application. Further, Mr.
Monaal Davawala, learned counsel also appeared and stated that now he
has been appointed to appear on behalf of SMAIT (the Applicant in IA No.
832 of 2022) and stated that Mr. Deepak Khosla is no longer a counsel for
SMAIT now. He also stated that SMAIT has not come up for any such
application for recall of the said order 21.02.2023. It was argued that on
this count too, the recall application is not maintainable. Nevertheless, Mr.
Deepak Khosla, the learned counsel argued that in the circumstances of
the case any shareholder having derivative right over the company can
lawfully file such application for recall of the order affecting his interest.

9. Nevertheless, we have given full thought over the issue. We are of the
considered view that our order dated 21.02.2023 is not at all
delivered/obtained on the basis of any fraud. The basic issue dealt in that
order was whether there lies any case of perjury against the various
respondents named therein and in the context we had made it very clear
that there was no such case of perjury. We had carefully gone into the
various facts that could be gathered from the various documents enclosed
in that application and the relevant orders referred thereto. We have placed

24 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

those relevant facts in the body of the order at para 3. For ready reference,
the same is reproduced hereunder:

“..3. Before we proceed in the matter, it would be appropriate to place

certain facts in the background of the matter involved. Some times in
September 2013, the ESIL had constructed a 253 km pipeline between
Dabuna to its pellet plant in Paradeep Orrisa for the transportation of Iron
Ore Slurry. Following that on 17.01.2014, OSPIL was incorporated and then
on 27.02.2015, ESIL and OSPIL executed a Business Transfer Agreement
(BTA) whereby ESIL transferred its 253 km long slurry pipeline between
Dabuna and Paradeep to OSPIL for a consideration of Rs 4000 crores. The
equity shares of OSPIL were owned by the applicant company Srei Multiple
Asset Investment Trust (SMAIT) and ESIL in the ratio of around 70% : 30%.
The said slurry pipeline was then taken back through Right to Use
Agreement (RTUA) dated 30.03.2015 on payment of monthly usages
charges @ Rs 600 crore per year.

The entire purchase consideration of Rs. 4000 crores was to be paid by

OSPIL to ESIL as per the schedule of payment contained in clause 2.3 of
BTA and that was on or before 30.06.2015. Further the clause 8.4 of the
BTA also provides that if the buyer i.e. OSPIL fails or delays in making the
payment on due dates, the seller i.e. ESIL will have right to exercise an
option for transfer of Business Undertaking back to it. The OSPIL was to
raise the required funds for payment of purchase consideration by raising
equity capital contribution to the exent of Rs. 800 crores and Rs. 3200 crores
by way of debt from banks and financial institutions. It appears that OSPIL
was unable to make entire payment as per the given time schedule in BTA
and had paid only Rs. 935 crores till 30.08.2015. Therefore, by addendum
dated 30.08.2015 to the RTU Aggreement, monthly usage charges were
reduced in proportion to the percentage of purchase consideration paid by
OSPIL at the end of respective months. The OSPIL could finally pay to the
extent of Rs. 2457 crores and therefore, as per the RTU addendum dated
30.08.2015, the monthly usage charges were to be Rs. 368 crores per year.

Further, the details placed before us shows that the shareholders of OSPIL
contributed around Rs 60 crores to its share capital. The OSPIL had raised a

25 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

loan of Rs 321.60 crores from Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited (“SIFL”)

and Rs. 501.01 crores from ESIL through compulsory convertible
debendrues. The balance fund was to be raised through various banks
(including IDBI) which were also the lenders to ESIL. The part of the loan
from those banks was received and with that it could pay ESIL to the extent
of Rs. 2457 crores. The OSPIL was in the process of rasing further loans
from those banks/financial instituions but, then on 30.01.2016, the RBI had
issued a clarification to the banks stating that sale and lease bank
transactions will be treated as an event of restructuring for the debt of the
seller as well as the buyer. In view of that circular OSPIL could not raise
further funds from the banks and inturn could not pay the balance amount
to ESIL. Therefore, after due delebration with the lenders of both the parties,
it was decided to unwind/cancel the BTA. The lender banks of OSPIL, also
decided to exercise its “put option” on ESIL thereby, OSPIL’s pipeline asset
together with its lenders principle loan amounts and investors principle
amounts were to revert to ESIL. Following that, despite the objections raised
by SIFL, the ESIL and OSPIL proceeded for execution of a cancellation deed
dated 24.06.2016 whereby the aforesaid pipeline agreements stood
cancelled, the slurry pipeline stood restored to ESIL together with OSPIL’s
liabilities towards its lenders and investors.

Thereafter on 20.11.2016 SIFL filed a title suit No. 177 of 2016 before the
Civil Judge at Sealdah (West Bengal), seeking a direction that the
cancellation deed dated 24.06.2016 is void ab initio as if non-est, and that
the pipeline be declared to be an asset of OSPIL. It’s plea for an ex-parte
interim stay was rejected, on the grounds that the matter will be considered
when defendents entered appearance. Following that on an appeal filed by
the SIFL, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court while granting interim relief,
directed to maintain status quo with regard to alienation, transfer in respect
of the said pipeline. The interim order is continued until the disposal of the
appeal.

Follwing that Standard Charterd Bank and State Bank of India filed
separate applications under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016 and CIRP was
initiated against ESIL vide order dated 02.08.2017 of the Adjudciating
Authority Ahmedabad Bench. During the CIRP the Resolution Plan of the
ArcelorMittal India Private Limited (“AMIPL”) (R-1) was approved by the
26 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

CoC and the same also got approval of the Adjudicating Authority vide order
dated 08.03.2019. After the take over the name of ESIL is changed to
ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited (“AMNSIL”) which is Respondent
No. 3 in the present application.

Meanwhile, on 28.03.2018, the IDBI Bank also filed a Section 7 IBC petition
against OSPIL before NCLT Kolkata. The proceedings were later transferred
to the Adjudicating Authority Cuttak. On 15.05.2019 the application was
admitted and CIRP was initiated against OSPIL. The AMIPL submitted its
Resolution Plan in the OSPIL CIRP also and the same got approved by the
CoC on 06.12.2019 and then by the Adjudicating Authority Cuttak vide
order dated 02.03.2020.

It is noted that the successful resolution applicant AMIPL through its

Resolution Plan had offered for infusing an amount of Rs 39,500 crores and
had also proposed that it will work with the lenders of OSPIL to successfully
resolved the issue relating to slurry pipeline, by way of acquisition of the
outstanding debt of OSPIL and to ensure that unhindered usages of that
asset was available for the business of the Corporate Debtor (ESIL). On
13.05.2019, the ArcellorMittal Group released a statement to the press
clarifying that it would be infusing Rs 42,000 crores into ESIL being Rs
39,500 crores committed in its Resolution Plan and an additional Rs 2500
crores to “resolve the situation regarding OSPIL”.

Then following the initiation of CIRP in OSPIL as on 15.05.2019 i.e., after

two days of its press release, the AMIPL inspite of its announcement to
infuse additional amount of Rs 2500 crores in ESIL to resolve the situation
regarding OSPIL, released another statement to the media that the proposed
infusion of additional fund of Rs 2500 crores would rather be for “general
working capital purposes”. Later AMIPL also gave its Resolution Plan in
OSPIL and offered an amount of Rs 2400 crores approx. The Resolution Plan
submitted by the AMIPL was approved on 06.12.2019 by the CoC of OSPIL
and later on 02.03.2020 by the Adjudicating Authority Cuttak…”.

In our order dated 21.02.2023, we have dealt with in details the complex
facts and provisions of laws applicable thereto in detail. We had reached
conclusion that the Adjudicating Authorities in earlier orders had taken

27 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

consistent view that the title of the slurry pipeline was in dispute in the
civil suit pending before the Civil Court at Sealdah. We had also made it
clear that with a view to enable the RP to proceed with CIRP of ESIL, which
is a time-bound process, the Adjudicating Authority had clarified that there
was no hindrance for potential resolution applicant for filing resolution
plans in view of the right of ESIL to use slurry pipelines under Right to Use
Agreement. For ready reference, our observations in the context as placed
in para 31 and 35 of that order dated 21.02.2023 is also reproduced
hereunder:

“.…31. So, the Adjudicating Authorities took consistent view that the title of
the slurry pipeline is still in dispute in the Civil Suit pending before the Civil
Court, at Sealdah. In view of the above, we have to see whether the
respondents had made a false statement deliberately in judicial proceeding
about the slurry pipeline, more so in the background of the facts as briefly
narrated in para 3 above in this order. The OSPIL and ESIL had cancelled
the BTA as well as RTU Agreements in view of the RBI’s clarification dated
13.01.2016 to the banks funding the transactions in the nature of sale and
lease back. The banks had funded ESIL while it had constructed the slurry
pipelines and had further advanced loan to OSPIL to pay the purchase
consideration. Such funding was not in accordance with the RBI’s policy.
For this reason, after the issuance of RBI’s letter dated 13.01.2016, OSPIL
could not raise further funds from lender banks to pay the balance amount
of consideration. The clause 8.4 of the BTA clearly provides that if, the
buyer failed to make the payment then the business undertaking would be
transferred back to the seller. The lender banks of OSPIL had also exercised
their “put option” thereby, the entire slurry pipeline was to be transferred
back to ESIL along with the principle amount of debt. The circumstnaces, led
to the cancellation of the BTA. From the facts & material on record, we are of
the prima facie view that the entire transaction appears to be an
arrangement whereby ESIL could raise the funds for its requirement. It may
not be a sale in the real sense, otherwise the usage charges of the slurry
pipeline would not have to be reduced proportionally to the payments made
by OSPIL to ESIL. The linking of usage charges to the amount paid as
purchase consideration supports the view. Later during the CIRP of ESIL,

28 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

the RP had included the slurry pipelines as owned by ESIL based on the
cancellation of BTA and RTU Agreemtns. As such that appears to be real
position. But in view of the dispute raised by one of the investors namely
SIFL and the pending proceedings in Civil Court, and also the intrim relief
order of the Calcutta High Court to maintain status quo with regard to
allination, transfer in respect of the said slurry pipeline, and with a view to
enable the RP to proceed with CIRP of ESIL, the Adjudicating Authority had
clarified that there was no hindrance for potential resolution applicant for
filing resolution plans in view of right of ESIL to use slurry pipelines under
RTUA. Our above observation is only for consideration of controversy at
hand involved in this application. We are of the view that the resolution
plans of AMIPL in CIRP of ESIL as well as OSPIL has been consistent with
the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority in Ahmedabad as well as in
Cuttak. And as such the stand taken by the ESIL, its RP as well as AMNSIL
(which is the new name of ESIL after take over in CIRP) or any of its
officers/representative as regards to the ownership of slurry pipelines on
cancellation of BTA cannot be taken as any false declaration before the
Adjudicating Authority.”

“….35. So, the factual scenario as emerges as on today is that the suit for
declaration of title of the slurry pipeline is still pending before the Civil Court
at Sealdah. The Hon’ble High Court directed to maintain the status quo
relating to the transfer, and alienation of the pipeline. We do not wish to
enter into submissions advanced by both sides as to how the order of the
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court to be interpreted and read. This Adjudicating
Authority twice held that it is not within its jurisdiction to resolve the
controversy about the disputed title of the pipeline. However, it was made
clear to the RP of the ESIL to consider the pipeline as one of the assets
available as per RTU for prospective resolution applicant. We may take into
consideration the fact that the ESIL i.e., the corporate debtor has the right to
use the pipeline. It appears from going through the voluminous material on
record that the RP of ESIL took all efforts for the successful culmination of
the CIRP of the ESIL by placing before the CoC of the ESIL the Resolution
Plan as submitted by R-1. We accept the submissions made on behalf of the
respondents that it is the assertion of the ESIL even as on today and even in
the Civil Suit pending in the Civil Court, Sealdah that it is the title holder of

29 | P a g e
 IA/283(AHM)2023 in IA/832(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) No. 40 of 2017

the slurry pipeline and it cannot be said to be a false declaration in the

judicial proceeding. We hold that there is nothing wrong if the party to any
proceedings who asserts certain facts and if said facts is not accepted by
the Judicial Forum to be correct that does not mean that the parties
asserting the facts commits perjury. If that logic is made applicable then
every losing party in a judicial proceeding shall be held to have committed
the offence of perjury. This cannot be the intention and interpretation of the
law.”

10. In our order dated 21.02.2023, we have noted the gist of oral
submissions of learned senior counsel for AMNSIL. However, we make it
clear that our order rejecting application is based on facts and material on
record.

11. After having heard the learned counsel Mr. Deepak Khosla in detail and
also taking note of the arguments advanced by Dr. Manu Singhvi, senior
counsel and some of the other counsels who appeared on behalf of other
respondents and after going through our order dated 21.02.2023 and the
relevant records, we find that the order is based on correct fact and
reasoning and is not at all based on any fraudulent statements made by
any of the respondents or their representatives and as such that does not
require any recall for our reconsideration on the matter.

12. In view of the above, the recall application is rejected.

13. The urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, to be issued to
all concerned parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

-SD- -SD-
KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR SINGH DR. MADAN B. GOSAVI
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Rajeev Kr. Sen/Stenographer

Shweta Desai - LRA

30 | P a g e