- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
NCLAT stays order which directed ArcelorMittal India to pay CIRP cost of Rs 1300 Cr
NCLAT stays order which directed ArcelorMittal India to pay CIRP cost of Rs 1300 Cr Stay to remain in force till 22 January, 2021 – the next date of hearing The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has directed that asad-interim the operation of the impugned order as regards making of payment of Rs 1,300 crore as CIRP cost by the Appellant (ArcelorMittal India Pvt. Ltd.)...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
NCLAT stays order which directed ArcelorMittal India to pay CIRP cost of Rs 1300 Cr
Stay to remain in force till 22 January, 2021 – the next date of hearing
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has directed that asad-interim the operation of the impugned order as regards making of payment of Rs 1,300 crore as CIRP cost by the Appellant (ArcelorMittal India Pvt. Ltd.) to OSPIL(Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infrastructure) by 15 December, 2020, shall remain stayed till next date of hearing. The matter has now been listed for admission (after notice) on 22 January, 2021.
Herein, the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench had directed ArcelorMittal India, to pay CIRP cost which was almost around Rs 1,300 crores to Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infrastructure for the use of subject slurry pipeline for running the Corporate Debtor as going concern during CIRP period of the Corporate Debtor.
Before the Hon'ble NCLAT, this aforementioned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench Court No.1 holding that the usage charges for the use of slurry pipeline for running the Corporate Debtor as going concern during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process period of the Corporate Debtor are IRP costs and directing the Appellant to make the payment of IRP costs to 'OSPIL' by 15 December, 2020, was assailed as being absurd.
Harish Salve, learned senior counsel representing the appellant, submitted that in terms of the impugned order the Appellant has been directed to make payment of aforesaid charges as IRP costs to an entity which had not claimed it during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of Essar Steel India Limited 'ESIL' or even thereafter. Reference in this regard had been made to the submissions of the Resolution Professional before the Adjudicating Authority.
The Hon'ble NCLAT has directed that the Respondents (SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. &Ors.) may file their reply affidavits within two weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, may be filed by the Appellant within two weeks thereof.