Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1487 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyApproval of Resolution Plan - section 30(2) of the 'I&B Code' - Corporate Debtor' is going concern or not - Non-compliance with Regulation 38 - HELD THAT:- Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the 'resolution applicant' was the erstwhile 'Promoter' and, therefore, is the relevant eligible party under section 29A of the I&B Code. However, such submission cannot be accepted as it has no bar for the 'Promoter' to file 'resolution application', even if otherwise not eligible in terms of section 29A. There is nothing on record to suggest that the 'Corporate Debtor' is an undischarged insolvent or wilful defaulter in accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India issued under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 or at the time of submission of 'resolution plan' has an account, classified as 'Non-Performing Asset' (NPA) in accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India or that the 'Promotor' or its Directors or has been convicted for any offence punishable with imprisonment or is disqualified to act as a Director under the Companies Act, 2013 or was prohibited by 'Securities and Exchange Board of India' (SEBI) or made any preferential transaction , an undervalued transaction or granted extortionate credit transaction or made fraudulent transaction etc. Corporate Debtor' is going concern or not - HELD THAT:- A 'resolution plan' cannot be rejected on such ground if the resolution applicant can show the feasibility to run the company in future - The 'Committee of Creditors' having gone through the financial aspects, including the viability, feasibility and other conditions of the 'Resolution Plan' and having approved the plan with 74.19% of voting share, this Appellate Tribunal is not inclined to decide such issue. Non-compliance with Regulation 38 - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that the 'Committee of Creditors' has noticed all the aspects and merely because the Appellant is a dissenting financial creditor, no interference is called for in absence of any illegality. Appeal dismissed.
|