TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity to the 8th respondent or even to the Appellant. In view of the discussion as made above, the impugned order dated 7th May, 2018 cannot be upheld and we accordingly set aside the impugned order. The ‘Resolution Plan’ of the Appellant having been approved by the ‘Committee of Creditors’ with 98.05% voting shares and it having been found viable and feasible and as it meets the requirements as referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 30, we direct the Adjudicating Authority to approve the ‘Resolution Plan’ submitted by the Appellant, as approved by the ‘Committee of Creditors’ and pass appropriate order. For such order no further hearing is required to be given except the information to the parties as the matter has been finally decided by this Appellate Tribunal. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 202 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 24-7-2018 - Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Justice and S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Member (Judicial) Chairperson For the Appellant: - Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, Senior Advocate and Mr. A.K. Ganguly, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D.N. Sharma, Mr. Abhijit Sinha, Mr. Arindam Gupta, Mr. Anup Kumar, Mr. Indranil Ghosh, Mr. Kunal Singh and Mr. Palzer Moktan, Advoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any reason, issued the aforesaid directions. 3. The facts and purported reason given by the Adjudicating Authority is as follows: CA(IB) No. 405/KB/2018 filed by Resolution Applicant, who is ranked as H-2, praying for stay of rank of H-1 applicant in the meeting held on 26/04/2018 and to give an opportunity to the applicant herein to revise its bid. The Ld. Resolution Professional (RP) submits that on 23/04/2018 a Modified Information Memorandum had been published and Resolution Applicants were given opportunity to revise their offer and the applicant herein submitted a revised offer on 26/04/2018 and that offer is also less than the offer of H-1 Resolution Applicant and therefore there is no merits in the contention of the applicant. We heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the RP as well as Ld. Sr. Counsel for H-1 applicant. It seems that one of the prayer on the side of the applicant is for revision of the offer and reconsideration of the revised offer by the RP before approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors (COC). In consideration of the said prayer on the side of the Resolution Applicant in the C.A., we are inclined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequently, a third modified Information Memorandum was issued by the Resolution Professional without any instructions from the Committee of Creditors , even after final decision of the Committee of Creditors on 5th April, 2018. In the said Information Memorandum, the claim of one IHCL and another Emfar were taken into consideration based on data record. 7. On 25th April, 2018, third time revised plan (Rs. 105.30 Cr.) was sought to be submitted by the 8th Respondent but not accepted by the Committee of Creditors . In any case, even the said revised plan was lower than the Resolution Plan of the Appellant who had offered ₹ 111.11 Crores. 8. In the meeting held on 25th April, 2018, the Committee of Creditors declared the Appellant s plan as the best, viable and feasible on the basis of upfront payment and scoring matrix. Therefore, on 26th April, 2018, the Committee of Creditors declared the Appellant s ( Shri Ram Residency Pvt. Ltd. ) plan as successful offered plan (of ₹ 111.11 Crores) in comparison to the plan submitted by the 8th Respondent ( Ritudhan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ) who offered plan of ₹ 103.50 Crores. The scoring matrix was prepare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said proceedings, the stand taken by both the Appellant and the 8th Respondent has been recorded. The key points discussed and deliberated by the Committee of Creditors with the Appellant- Sh. Ram Residency Pvt. Ltd. ( SRPL ) has been recorded wherein the Appellant agreed to continue with IHCL till full payment to IHCL is made. Thereby the third modified Information Memorandum dated 23rd April, 2018 with regard to IHCL and Emfar were discussed and taken care by the Appellant. 13. In the said proceedings, the key points discussed with 8th Respondent- Ritudhan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ( RSPL ) has also been recorded. The RSPL also agreed to continue with IHCL till full payment to IHCL is made. The claim admission for IHCL and also estimated increase of CIRP costs by ₹ 30 lakhs were also accepted by both the Appellant and the 8th Respondent. Thereby, we find that the third modified Information Memorandum prepared by the Resolution Professional on 23rd April, 2018 were taken care in the Resolution Plans submitted by both the Appellant and the 8th Respondent accepting the claims of IHCL . 14. As per Section 30(2), the Resolution Professional is requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
