9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Park Limited(KIPL)as approved by the members of Committee of Creditors (CoC). 3. After the initiation of the CIRP, the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) published Public Announcement on 18-5-2018 calling upon the creditors of the Corporate Debtor for submission of claims by 30-5-2018. The RP under review and verification of the proof of claims filed by creditors of the Corporate Debtor constituted CoC by Section 21 of the Code. 4. The first CoC meeting was held on 14-6-2018 wherein the IRP was appointed as RP. On 21-6-2018 the RP appointed two valuers to determine the fair value and liquidation value of the corporate debtor, namely M/s Kanti Karamsey& Co. and Thite Valuers & Engineers Private Limited. As per Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India(Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016(CIRP Regulations) the RP arrived at fair value of Rs. 1,90,20,326/- and liquidation Value of Rs. 1,53,52,196/-. 5. The RP published Expression of Interest (EOI), as approved by CoC, on 14-8-2018 for inviting EOI. Under such publication, 5 EOIs were received. 6. Incidentally, CIRP Regulations were amended adding in the definition of financial creditor, an &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quity ownership of the Corporate Debtor and to extinguish all shareholding interest of the existing shareholders of the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Plan proposes to cancel the shareholding of the existing shareholders and issue fresh share capital of Rs. 1,05,000/- through fresh issue of 10,500 Eq. shares of Rs. 10/- each to the Resolution Applicant. The Plan further proposes to include all the gala owners as Equity Shareholders of Corporate Debtor within six months from the approval of the Resolution Plan by Adjudicating Authority. The number of shareholders in the Corporate Debtor would, therefore, be more than 50. Since there is no general public issue or open offer, therefore, the Resolution Plan seeks exemption from SEBI Regulations, upon approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority.We are not inclined to allow such relief under SEBI Act. The Resolution Applicant is at liberty to file Application for the same before the appropriate Authority under relevant law. 14. The Resolution Plan proposes the payment of to various stakeholders as per the following tabulation: Category of Creditor Amount admitted Allocation as per Approved Resolution Plan CIRP co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oval of the resolution plan. 16. As per the Resolution Plan, no claim was received concerning employee/workmen dues either from employees/workers or any statutory authority. Further, no money is payable to operational creditors, or another creditor as the liquidation value allocable to them is zero. It is directed that the Resolution Applicant shall ensure the payment of operational dues of the Corporate Debtor is in compliance of the amended section 30(2) of the I&B Code as the amendment expressly provides that it would apply to all applications pending for approval of the resolution plan. 17. The Resolution Plan further proposes to pay all outstanding dues of BMC towards Property Tax including dues of Rs. 1,21,13,467/- as on CIRP commencement date. 18. The term of the resolution plan is proposed as ten months from the date of order of approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority. 19. The Resolution Plan proposes to appoint a monitoring agency as per the provisions of the I&B Code that will be approved by the CoC. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Resolution Applicant that Monitoring Agency shall comprise of CA Hemant J. Mehta (IP Registration No. IBB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harges, legal charges, etc. 39,264,000 3,92,64,000 3 Sale consideration from unsold galas - 21 units 2,68,92,000 6,72,30,000 2,01,69,000 2,01,69,000 13,44,60,000 4 Additional contribution from Gala owners for CIRP cost, repayment of SBI, payment to Gala owners whose gala is not in MCGM approved plan as full and final settlement, and BMC Assessment Tax. 1,91,00,000 30,00,000 30,13,467 25,90,300 - 2,77,03,767 5. Additional Contribution from Gala owners for construction and regularization after receipt of above amounts - 37,92,03,803 31,49,78,745 14,23,31,000 25,19,68,413 1,08,84,81,961 Total 11,25,38,826 50,25,34,6 29 38,52,22,2 12 16,50,90,3 00 31,14,01,4 13 1,47,67,87,3 80 25. The Resolution Applicant undertakes that as on the date of submission of this Resolution Plan, the Resolution Applicant and the person acting in concert with the Resolution Applicant or who is promoter or person in management or control of the Resolution Applicant and their Connected Person are eligible to submit this Resolution Plan in accordance with section 29A of the Code and other provision of applicable laws. 26. The RP ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ward all records relating to the conduct of the corporate insolvency resolution process and the resolution plan to the IBBI to be recorded on its database. 35. The Resolution Plan is at this moment approved under section 31(1) of I&B Code with observations above. The MA 660/2019 is accordingly allowed and disposed of. 36. Mr. Kaushal R. Mehta and Mr. Pratik R. Mehta (Claimants) have filed separate applications being MA 500/2019, MA 855/2019 and MA 853/2019 challenging the rejection of their claim as a secured financial creditor by the Resolution Professional and opposing the approval, by Adjudicating Authority, of the Resolution Plan approved by the COC. Admittedly, both the claimants are brothers and have granted loan to a sister concern of the Corporate Debtor, who in turn offered repayment in terms of allotment of Gala in the project of the Corporate Debtor. The grievance of claimants have arisen from similar circumstances and was rejected by the Resolution Professional on similar grounds, therefore their applications are dealt together. 37. Admittedly the Claimants gave loan to a sister concern of the Corporate Debtor which was assigned to the Corporate Debtor. An agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e agreement is dated 29-11-2011 whereas the loan was assigned in the year 2014. 40. In light of the above facts and circumstances, we find that the documents submitted by the Claimants, do not prove the existence of debt or allotment of Gala to the Claimants. Further, there is no privity of the Corporate Debtor to the loan agreement between the Claimant and the sister concern of the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, the Claim of the Claimants is not maintainable and at this moment Rejected. In light of the rejection of claim of the Claimants, they do not have any locus to challenge the Resolution Plan, and therefore, the objections to the resolution filed by the claimants are also not maintainable and at this moment Rejected. The MA 500/2019, MA 853/2019 and MA 855/2019 are dismissed. 41. Mr. Saurav Vashisth suspended Director and Guarantor for the Corporate Debtor has filed its objection to the approval of the Resolution Plan. His grievance is about the resolution of the CoC to approve the Resolution Plan without prejudice to the rights of the secured financial creditor against the guarantors and the proposal in the Resolution Plan that SBI shall, after payment as per the resolution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objection of the Guarantor and at this moment reject the same. 45. The erstwhile Promotor has filed objections to the approval of the resolution plan on the grounds of alleged suppression of facts by the RP, careful non consideration of various facts available on record with the State Bank of India and non-compliance of the requisitions of section 30 and section 31 of the I&B Code. We have gone through the objection of the erstwhile promoter of the Corporate Debtor. The compliance of various sections of the I&B Code is discussed in this order and is certified by the RP. Further, the resolution plan is approved by the CoC in its commercial wisdom. Therefore, we do not find any merit in objections raised by the erstwhile promoter of the Corporate Debtor and the same are rejected. 46. MA 854/2019 is filed by Mrs. Saroj Gupta objecting the approval of the Resolution Plan. However, the said MA is sought to be disposed of as the parties to the application have agreed upon and entered into consent terms. Therefore, MA 854/2019 is disposed of in terms of the Consent terms. 47. The MA 977/2019 is filed by various Gala/Unit purchasers seeking permission to intervene in the Application and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
