Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1366 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyEligibility to submit resolution plan - a person whose account has been declared NPA - locus standi to file the appeal and underlying application (before the Adjudicating Authority) or not? - whether the Successful Resolution Applicant Roma Unicon Designex Consortium is eligible under section 29-A to submit a Resolution Plan for the Corporate Debtor/Earth Infrastructure Ltd. since the directors of Successful Resolution Applicant and are common with the director of Zillion Infra and Zillion Infra account was declared NPA on 31.01.2018 and hence, the condition of Section 29-A (j) r/w Explanation – I is infringed? Locus standi of the Appellant to file the instant appeal - HELD THAT:- The Appellant has claimed that he became aware of the ineligibility of one of the Resolution Applicants submitting plan for insolvency resolution of the Corporate Debtor and therefore, he acquired right under Section 60(5) to raise the issue before the Adjudicating Authority and also the right to file this Appeal as he found a material irregularity in exercise of the powers by the RP during the CIRP - the Appellant ‘Bipin Sharma’ has the right and entitlement to file this Appeal. Non-performing assets - HELD THAT:- Mrs. Rashmi Saxena seized to be a director of Zillion Infra on 02.12.2009, and therefore, her entitlement to submit the resolution plan in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor/Earth Infrastructure Ltd. is not hit by section 29-A (c) wherein a period of one year should not have elapsed from the date of declaration of NPA of a company (in the present case Zillion Infra) who is in the management and control of the Successful Resolution Applicant, therefore, we find no strength in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that Mrs. Rashmi Saxena, who submitted the resolution plan on behalf of the Roma Unicon Designex Consortium is ineligible under Section 29-A (c) to submit the resolution plan of the Corporate Debtor/Earth Infrastructure Ltd. Interpretation of the provision in section 29-A (c) and the Explanation-I of the said provision - HELD THAT:- It is abundantly clear that the ingredients of sub-clause (c) of section 29-A do not come in the way of eligibility of the Successful Resolution Applicant to submit a resolution plan through its authorized representative Mrs. Rashmi Saxena. The issue of objections raised by certain homebuyers who form part of creditors in class to stand individually and object has also been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaypee Infratech Ltd. [2021 (3) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT] and held that ‘any individual homebuyer or any association of homebuyers cannot maintain a challenge to the resolution plan and cannot be treated as a dissenting financial creditor or an aggrieved person. Admittedly, the class of creditors of which Applicants are a part have already assented and approved a resolution plan and therefore, are estopped in law from preferring any objection or appeal to resolution plan which has been approved by class.’ Thus, the Successful Resolution Applicant working through Mrs. Rashmi Saxena, one of its directors, was not ineligible to submit a resolution plan of the Corporate Debtor/Earth Infrastructure Ltd.. Moreover, the resolution plan has been approved by the financial creditors in class voting through their authorized representative - there are no reason to interfere with the impugned order - appeal dismissed.
|