2023 (3) TMI 698 - AT - Insolvency & Bankruptcy

E-auction - submission which has much pressed by learned counsel for the Appellant is that the Appellant has made a higher offer of more than 10% from the offer of Respondent No.2 which was sufficient ground to accept the offer of the Appellant, maximisation of the value of the Corporate Debtor being the main objective of the I&B Code.

HELD THAT:- There can be no dispute that maximisation of the value of the Corporate Debtor is one of the objectives of the I&B Code. However, the said objective has to be achieved within timelines. There has been already five failed e-auctions and the Respondent No.2 was an entity who had been interested in the Corporate Debtor from very beginning by submitting Resolution Plan. Respondent No.2 was objecting to the liquidation and even filed an appeal in this Tribunal, where this Tribunal observed that Liquidator should explore the possibility for a scheme for compromise and arrangement. The Respondent No.2 has also filed a scheme for compromise which came to be considered by the Stakeholder Consultation Committee, which was not approved having received only 64% voting share. The Stakeholder Consultation Committee have thus well aware of the plan and scheme submitted by Respondent No.2 and Stakeholders has given their express approval to the proposal of Respondent No.2. The acceptance of proposal of Respondent No.2, which was more than the last Reserve Price of the failed auction, after due deliberation was accepted by the Stakeholders.

The Respondent No.2 was not a stranger to the above process and he has already filed Resolution Plan and a scheme which was not earlier approved. Financial Creditors were aware of the credentials of the Respondent No.2 and must have interacted with the Respondent No.2 even earlier - there are no error in exercise of jurisdiction by the Adjudicating Authority in approving the proposal of Respondent No.2 and judgment of this Tribunal in Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. was on its own facts.

There are no illegality in the order of the Adjudicating Authority which may warrant interference in the impugned order in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction - appeal dismissed.