In Re M/s Wig Associates Pvt. Ltd. - My first brush with the joys of litigation

I had just joined IBBI as Assistant Manager for a few months and my friend Tuhina and I was assigned an important matter by the then Executive Director of IBBI, Mr. KR Saji Kumar. The matter concerned an appeal against the order dated 04.06.2018 of the NCLT Mumbai Bench which approved an OTS (one time settlement) offered by a related party of the corporate debtor, M/s Wig Associates Pvt. Ltd., as a resolution plan completely ignoring section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

IBBI's appeal failed before the NCLAT and moreover, Justice Mukhopadhaya was unhappy with the appeal filed by IBBI and our counsel had to bear the brunt of it in the court room. We were ordered that IBBI may direct the insolvency professional (IP) in the case, Mr. Martin Golla to file an appeal in the matter. We did so and the IP did not file the appeal and disciplinary action was taken against him. But this precedent set by the NCLT Mumbai Bench still remained and it could potentially derail section 29A of the Code and with that the hope of changing the credit culture in India. Something had to be done urgently.

The top bosses of IBBI decided that we would file an interim application (IA) in the same matter arguing that the appeal was not filed by the IP against the directions of IBBI and the NCLAT. But no lawyer was willing to argue the matter given the past unhappiness of Justice Mukhopadhaya in this matter. So Tuhina and I were allotted this case and were directed to argue the matter (first time when Saji sir told us to argue the matter, I seriously felt he was joking). Both of us had zero experience in litigation. The IA was drafted by Saji sir and we were asked to file the document and argue the matter. Words like paperbook, court fees, mentioning etc. were alien to us and we had till that time only read about these in books. Thankfully, we received a lot of help and guidance from Mr. Umesh Chandra, Deputy Registrar, NCLAT and we were told that the petition can only be filed if the judges allow it, so we had to mention the matter.

The first day of hearing of the case came, sometime in November, 2018. I still remember the court room scenes bright as day. Two of us with zero experience in litigation standing before the bench to mention a matter, shit scared thinking of the burden that had been put on our novice shoulders. We first stood on the left side facing the bench (where the respondents stand), the court officer saw us and signalled us to stand on the right side facing the bench (where the appellants stand). We were thoroughly embarrassed and even more scared, but we were fortunate to have been spared from embarrassment before the judges due to the kind court officer. Finally, the court started, after observing one or two lawyers mentioning their matters, we feebly mentioned our matter to Justice Mukhopadhaya and he kindly granted leave. We were elated and the petition was filed.

Second hearing was on 03.12.2018, we stated our points before the judges and notices were issued to the respondents directing them to file their responses. Second hearing was on 11.01.2019, it was exhilarating, we were arguing against a battery of lawyers of the respondents but we were sure of ourselves as the law was on our side. Additional time was given to the respondents to file their affidavits and to the IBBI to file rejoinder, if any. Final day of hearing was on 05.02.2019, Dr. U.K. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate was arguing against us. We received a bouncer from the other side that Mr. Martin Golla has filed the appeal and that the IBBI has no case, we were completely unprepared and taken off guard. Somehow we gathered our wits and argued that IBBI is unaware of the contents of the appeal and raised questions regarding the bonafides of the IP in representing the true and correct position of the law in this matter. The arguments heated up and we argued forcefully. Both of us spoke confidently and at the top of our voices. Anyways, the IA was dismissed as the appeal was filed by Mr. Golla and IBBI was granted leave to seek impleadment in the said appeal. We had achieved our objective and victory was sweet!.

After that the lawyers of IBBI took over, IBBI was made respondent no. 3 in the case and on 04.06.2021, exactly 3 years after the impugned NCLT Mumbai Bench order, the NCLAT has held the order to be bad in law, allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the NCLT for passing of a liquidation order against the corporate debtor under section 33 of the Code. It was validation of IBBI's years of hard work. On my last day of hearing before the NCLAT I had stated in the open court room that the IBBI will not remain an idle bystander to illegalities and wrong interpretation of the Code which may potentially derail the achievement of the objectives of the Code. This judgment has only proven my statement. The Code is in good hands.