FILE PHOTO: A woman walks past a signboard of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (DHFL) outside its office on the outskirts of Mumbai, India, Jan. 31, 2019. REUTERS/Francis Mascarenhas/File Photo
Kapil Wadhawan, former promoter of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL), has filed a fresh petition in the Supreme Court challenging three orders of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
Wadhawan, in his petition, which was filed late last month, said the three orders have deprived him, as a former Director and guarantor of DHFL, from participating in the proceedings of the Committee of Creditors. The respondents include R Subramaniakumar, Administrator of DHFL, the Committee of Creditors and Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.
“The appellant despite being a promoter shareholder, an erstwhile Director and a guarantor has been denied even a copy of the Resolution Plan during the pendency of proceedings both before the NCLT and the NCLAT, thus depriving him entirely of the opportunity to effectively contribute towards the approval process,” he said.
Settlement plan questioned
He also questioned the Resolution Plan which, he said, provides for a 60 per cent haircut for dues of financial creditors and an effective write-off of other dues without even considering the settlement proposal offered by him which would have provided for payment of the entire principal due to all financial creditors, individual depositors and bond holders.
“All this has been done by the NCLAT without addressing the concerns raised by this appellant on the merits but on the incorrect basis that the appellant’s appeal had been rendered infructuous by the 63 Moons’ order,” he contended, adding that it led to windfall gains for the Piramal Group. In January, the NCLAT had asked the Committee of Creditors of DHFL to consider a petition by 63 Moons over the resolution plan by Piramal Group ascribing Rs. 1 value to Rs. 40,000 crore worth of recoverable assets in thehousing finance company.
Wadhawan said the NCLAT, in its February 14 order, rejected his appealon the grounds that it had become infructuous in the light of the order passed in the 63 Moons’ appeal.