Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 903 - SUPREME COURT
Jurisdiction - allegation that NCLAT had exceeded its jurisdiction in directing matching of liquidation value in the resolution plan - HELD THAT:- MSL in the appeal have sought to sustain the resolution plan but their prayer in the interlocutory application is refund of the amount remitted coupled with the plea of withdrawal of resolution plan. However, their main case in the appeal is that final decision on resolution plan should be left to the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors and there is no requirement that resolution plan should match the maximized asset value of the corporate debtors.
No provision in the Code or Regulations has been brought to our notice under which the bid of any Resolution Applicant has to match liquidation value arrived at in the manner provided in Clause 35 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 - the object behind prescribing such valuation process is to assist the CoC to take decision on a resolution plan properly. Once, a resolution plan is approved by the CoC, the statutory mandate on the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(1) of the Code is to ascertain that a resolution plan meets the requirement of sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 30 thereof.
Certain allegations were made by the MSL over failure on the part of the Resolution Professional in taking possession of the assets of the corporate debtor and subsequently in their failure in handing over the same to MSL. These issues are factual - The order of the Adjudicating Authority passed on 21st January 2019 is affirmed - appeal allowed.