TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present case, the Resolution Professional received only one Resolution Plan of STPL within the stipulated timeline which was duly recorded in the minutes of 29th CoC meeting held on 30.10.2019. After that, on 07.11.2019, unsuccessful Resolution Applicant IMR approached the R.P. expressing its interest to submit a Resolution Plan, though the period of submission was already expired on 30.10.2019. The Appellant cannot question the commercial wisdom of the CoC in rejecting the Resolution Plan, with the requisite majority and in approving the Resolution Plan of SPTL. No material irregularity in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process before the R.P. has been demonstrated - the impugned order has been passed on proper Application of mind. The Impugned Order regarding approval of Resolution Plan need not be interfered - appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 272 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2020 - Justice Bansi Lal Bhat Acting Chairperson, V. P. Singh Member (Technical), Shreesha Merla Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr Pinaki Misra, Mr Abhimanyu Bhandari, Mr Aditya Shankar, Ms Nattasha Garg and Ms Aashima Singhal, Advocates For the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther directions to the COC to reconsider the Resolution Plan of the Appellant on merits and approve the resolution plan being the most viable on quantitative and qualitative parameters. But the Adjudicating Authority vide the impugned order rejected the Application which is under challenge in this Appeal. 5. It is essential to mention that the Resolution Applicant has no vested right that his Resolution Plan must be considered. It is settled position of law as laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in (2019) 2 SCC 1 in case of Arcelor Mittal India Pvt Ltd Satish Kumar Gupta that the resolution applicant does not have any vested right that his Resolution Plan must be considered. 6. The commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount, and it has the absolute prerogative to decide the viability and feasibility of the Resolution Plans presented before them and the same is not to be interfered even by the Adjudicating Authority. 7. In the present case, the CoC after evaluating both the Resolution Plan being that of STPL and IMR based on pre-disclosed evaluation criteria approved the Resolution Plan of STPL by a voting share of 95.15% and the same is duly reflected in e-voting result of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idually or their collective decision is beyond the pale of challenge before the Adjudicating Authority and the same has been made non-justiciable. This is the dictum of Hon‟ble Apex Court in K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank , (2019) 12 SCC 150: (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 222: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 257. Dealing with the scope of an appeal under Section 61(1) of the I B Code, the Hon‟ble Apex Court noticed that apart from other grounds the Appeal could be instituted against an order approving a Resolution Plan limited to six grounds noticed therein including that the approved Resolution Plan is in the contravention in the provisions of any law for the time being in force or that there has been any material irregularity in exercise of powers by the Resolution Professional during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Thus, it is clear that the jurisdiction bestowed upon this Appellate Tribunal too is expressly circumscribed. The examination in challenge to the approved Resolution Plan by this Tribunal is limited to matters other than enquiry into the business decision based on commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors. The limited judicial review in Appeal does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and by the appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) under Section 32 read with Section 61(3) of the I B Code. No corresponding provision has been envisaged by the legislature to empower the resolution professional, the adjudicating Authority (NCLT) or for that matter the appellate Authority (NCLAT), to reverse the commercial decision of the CoC much less of the dissenting financial creditors for not supporting the proposed resolution plan. Whereas, from the legislative history, there is contraindication that the commercial or business decisions of the financial creditors are not open to any judicial review by the adjudicating Authority or the appellate Authority. 51. Suffice it to observe that in the I B Code and the regulations framed thereunder as applicable in October 2017, there was no need for the dissenting financial creditors to record reasons for disapproving or rejecting a resolution plan. Further, as aforementioned, there is no provision in the I B Code which empowers the adjudicating Authority (NCLT) to oversee the justness of the approach of the dissenting financial creditors in rejecting the proposed resolution plan or to engage in judicial review thereof. Concededly, the inq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
