- 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
Vedanta Group Urges Supreme Court to Dismiss the Appeal by Venugopal Dhoot Ex-Chairman of Videocon
Vedanta Group Urges Supreme Court to Dismiss the Appeal by Venugopal Dhoot Ex-Chairman of Videocon
Vedanta Group’s subsidiary Twinstar Technologies, led by Anil Agarwal, has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal filed by the former Chairman of Videocon Industries, Venugopal Dhoot against its National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approved bid to acquire Videocon and its 12 affiliate companies.
Previously, the lenders and the NCLT had approved Twinstar’s bid to acquire Videocon and its group companies for Rs. 2,962 crores under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
However, Venugopal Dhoot challenged the bid in the Supreme Court and sought for a direction to the banks to accept his Rs. 31,789 crores resolution plan.
The Supreme Court on 17 April, 2023 had asked Twinstar to file its response to the appeal.
In its reply, Twinstar alleged that Dhoot has been a ‘fence sitter who has waited till the eleventh hour’ to make a bid, and has always made several attempts to ‘disrupt and derail’ the insolvency proceedings via ‘vexatious and frivolous’ legal proceedings.
Despite the appeal being listed 17 times, Twinstar argued that the former chairman of the company had not taken sufficient steps towards the issuance of notices in his latest appeal filed on 8 August, 2022.
According to Twin Star, Dhoot had never challenged the decision of Videocon lenders to reject his proposal under IBC Section 12A, which purportedly permits the withdrawal of insolvency proceedings.
It was further contended that he had even called for a fresh information memorandum and expression of interest by including certain foreign oil and gas assets, and in the alternative, prayed for a direction to the lenders to reconsider and approve his proposal.
Dhoot claimed in his petition that his resolution plan entailed a ‘zero haircut’ to lenders, while alleged that Twinstar’s resolution plan had compromised the interests of the corporate debtors with the approval of its resolution plan.