Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (2) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1313 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyApproval of Resolution Plan - undervalued/preferential transaction - whether Permitted User Agreement has been cancelled by this Authority while approving the resolution plan? - HELD THAT:- As far as contract between the Corporate Debtor and Prashant Properties Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, that has been definitely executed before the look back period of two years as the Resolution Professional and/or Forensic Consultant have not been able to make out a case that it was a back-dated transaction or an instance of fraudulent transaction. No specific finding in this regard has been given even by external technical consultant. Thus, on this preliminary ground itself, no adverse conclusion can be arrived at against the erstwhile management of Corporate Debtor. Further, there is another aspect of the matter. In valuation of the business / enterprise of the Corporate Debtor, no value has been assigned to this brand based upon the fact that no historical contribution has been made by such trademark owned by Corporate Debtor to the revenue of Corporate Debtor and once Resolution Professional or COC has not valued such brand, then, how the amount of recovery/consideration, even if it is assumed that it was a case of undervalued transaction, can be determined in terms of provisions of Section 48(1)(c) & 48(1)(d) of IBC, 2016. If it is so, then for non-applicability of machinery to calculate the amount also, such allegation fails. Apart from merits, as discussed above, we find that the inference drawn is inconclusive in every manner - it is also not a case of undervalued or preferential transaction. Maintainability of application - whether this Authority has jurisdiction as the resolution plan has already been approved? - HELD THAT:- The resolution plan has already been approved on 8th April 2019 by this Authority. It is a settled position that there is no power of review to this Authority of its own actions, hence, the contentions of Intervenor being in the nature of asking this Authority to review its own decision are not valid within the scheme / framework of the provisions of IBC, 2016. Thus, this contention of Successful Resolution Applicant is accepted particularly when there does not exist a case of fraud or violation of provisions of Section 30(2) of IBC, 2016 in getting the approval of Resolution Plan. We further note that no appeal under Section 61 of IBC, 2016 against approval of Resolution Plan has been preferred by Prashant Properties Pvt. Ltd., Intervenor, who also happens to be operational creditor of the Corporate Debtor and time limit for doing so has already expired, hence, Resolution Plan has become final. Such Resolution Plan is binding on all stakeholders as per provisions of Section 31 of IBC, 2016. Application filed by Resolution Professional is rejected and dismissed.
|