Edelweiss is making everything a serious issue: Mamta Binani

With Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) approaching the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the case of Synergies Dooray, Veena Mani speaks to MAMTA BINANI, who is the resolution professional in the insolvency proceedings. Edelweiss has complained about Mamta Binani. Edited excerpts:

Did Edelweiss ARC present any evidence to suggest that Synergies Casting and Millennium Finance are related parties?

Edelweiss ARC only raised allegations. No evidence was presented by Edelweiss to suggest that Synergies Casting (SCL) and Millennium Finance (MFL) are related parties. In this connection, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Hyderabad, while dismissing the application of Edelweiss being CA No. 43 of 2017 ordered as under:   

As rightly pointed out by the learned RP, MFL cannot be termed as a related party. Edelweiss has no locus standi to question various rights obtained by MFL from SCL by assignment agreement deeds in question. Edelweiss is making everything a serious issue, right from the stage of Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction to date. We have examined the legality of the assignment deeds in question in detail in the subsequent CA No. 57 of 2017 wherein we have passed a detailed order by rejecting all the contentions of Edelweiss.... we are of the prima facie opinion that the Edelweiss’ action throughout the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) proceedings is not acceptable considering the preamble of the Code. After perusing various records, the Bench is of the opinion that there is non-relationship between SCL and MFL.

Under what sections of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was Edelweiss ARC’s plea in the case of MFL rejected?

Edelweiss’ plea was on multiple counts. NCLT Hyderabad has ruled that MFL and SCL are not related party. Sec 5(24) clearly defines as to who is a related party as aforesaid. The learned tribunal in its wisdom has examined all the allegations in detail under the provisions of the IBC and has dismissed them in terms of the applicable provisions of the Code.

Now that Edelweiss has approached the NCLAT, in your expert what are the options before the tribunal?

NCLT Hyderabad has passed the following five speaking orders wherein it has raised apprehensions over the conduct of Edelweiss during the CIRP process of Synergies Dooray. NCLT Hyderabad has also ruled that the RP has followed all the extant procedures prescribed for CIRP under the IBC, 2016. The learned tribunal in para 11 of its order on CA 43 of 2017 (page 25) has categorically stated and I quote, “In the light of aforesaid contentions and findings, we are satisfied that the learned insolvency resolution professional has acted strictly in accordance with law by duly following the extant procedures prescribed under IBC, 2016, and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) Regulations, 2016, and also followed principles of natural justice.”

• Order in the matter of CA 43 of 2017
• Order in the matter of CA 56 of 2017
• Order in the matter of CA 57 of 2017
• Order in the matter of CA 70 of 2017
• Order in the matter of CA 124 of 2017

Since NCLT Hyderabad has dismissed Edelweiss’ contentions as baseless allegations by way of aforesaid 5 orders, Edelweiss has therefore appealed before NCLAT.

What is your stated position to Edelweiss ARC’s appeal? What is the presentation you made to the IBBI on the acquisitions against you?

My position to Edelweiss ARC Appeal: I maintain that I have acted in accordance with the Code and have fully justified my role as a resolution professional. All the contentions and allegations of Edelweiss was put before the NCLT during the CIRP process, so much so that Edelweiss had sought for cancellation or deferment to the first meeting of the committee of creditors scheduled for February 22, 2017, and had moved the NCLT with an application in this regard, on which the NCLT on consideration of this application on February 22, 2017, had permitted the insolvency resolution professional to conduct the proposed meeting of the committee of creditors, subject to any further orders of NCLT.

As a resolution professional, continuous reporting of the developments in the process was made, to the NCLT, as per its directions, without a single aberration. The whole process was under the scanner of the NCLT.

During the CIRP process, Edelweiss took all questions of law or process to the NCLT for its decision. There have been contentions by Edelweiss that the resolution professional has not taken legal help which I totally refute. All its contentions were taken by Edelweiss to the adjudicating authority itself (in this case, NCLT Hyderabad) for seeking clarity and repudiation. When everything was already under the adjudicating authority’s jurisdiction itself and that too taken up by Edelweiss, what else could the resolution professional have done in the matter to further seek clarifications in the matter. In the entire process which ran for six months, not even a single time, the resolution professional was directed otherwise by the NCLT. In the said circumstances, the plea made against the resolution professional is totally infructuous.

To date, I have not heard anything from the IBBI formally as regards any complaint made by Edelweiss against me. It is the representatives of Edelweiss who are blowing it out in the social media without realising that their conduct in the whole CIRP process was questioned by NCLT Hyderabad by way of an order   I have recently made a presentation to IBBI on the resolution plan of Synergies Dooray as it was the first one to be approved in the country.