TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber 2018. EoI was received from 12 Resolution Applicants, out of which 11 were found eligible. Last date for receipt of Resolution plan was 08th March 2019. Only one resolution plan was received from successful Resolution Applicant, whereas Appellant has asked for EOI on 12th June 2020 when application seeking approval of Resolution Plan was already filed by RP on 10th July, 2019 under section 31 of Code after Committee of Creditors (CoC) Approval on 28th June 2019 with 79.3% voting share. All this reflect that Appellant wanted to enter fray nearly one year after CoC approval of Resolution Plan; it neither qualifies as Resolution Applicant nor as prospective Resolution Applicant or successful or unsuccessful Resolution Applicant and hence cannot be termed as aggrieved party. Appellant may be termed as an outsider standing on the sidelines. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is time bound, value maximization has also to be in time-bound manner. Thus, Appellant is neither an aggrieved party in the process of CIRP nor he has a locus standi to file the appeal. Appeal is held to be not maintainable and Appellant has no locus to maintain it - appeal dismissed. - Company Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 30(2) of the Code, 2016. The Appellant has also raised that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (for short CIRP ) defined period has already expired on 16.04.2019 and yet to approve CA 613 of 2019 for exclusion of time. In between the Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan on 19.10.2020 in CP(IB) No. 50(PB)/2018. 4. The Appellant has sought the following reliefs: a. Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.10.2020 (Pronounced on 19.10.2020) passed by Adjudicating Authority in relation to the CA No. 1393(PB)/2019 in CP No. (IB)- 50PB/2018 and CA No. 1875(PB)/2020 in CP No. (IB) 50(PB)/2018; b. Consequently, direct the CoC to consider the proposal of the Appellant, for submission of detailed resolution plan, and put the same to voting by CoC; c. Pass such other consequential orders as may be deemed fit by this Appellate Tribunal in order to meet the ends of the prayers at (a) and (b). etc 5. However, this Appellate Tribunal, in its first hearing after hearing, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Salman Kurshid, and Mr. Manu Singhvi, appearing for R-3. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 and Mr. Angur Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either reject the Resolution Plan or send it back to CoC for reconsideration, subject to CIRP period. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority modifying the Resolution Plan is in excess of jurisdiction vested with the Adjudicating Authority and it is settled principle of law that an order passed without jurisdiction is nullity and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Appellate Tribunal. Further, the Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan in a mechanical manner and has abdicated in its duty to confirm whether the terms of the Resolution Plan are not in violative of provisions of Code or other provisions of law. The Adjudicating Authority in last para of the impugned order has itself recorded that entire resolution plan has not been examined and whichever provision is inconsistent with Section 30(2)(e) of the Code, it shall be treated as not approved by Adjudicating Authority. Relevant paragraph of the impugned order is reproduced herein below: 249 .. for this plan is spread in various schedules running into several pages, since all these aspects have not been brought to the notice of this Bench at the time of makin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no provision under the Code under which a Resolution Plan duly approved by the CoC can be kept pending or rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on the basis that another high value plan is likely to be submitted or to be submitted. The Adjudicating Authority has no authority to challenge the Resolution Plan on commercial consideration. The relevant rules and acts provides for the procedure to be followed which starts from initiation of Expression of Interest to submission of Resolution Plan as provided by the relevant regulations and suddenly in between some plan/ some proposal cannot be considered to jeopardize the system of CIRP and once this is permitted no Resolution Plan will ever be approved by the Adjudicating Authority. Learned Sr. Counsel has also placed Reliance on Chhatisgarh Disstillersis Ltd. Vs. Dushyant Dave Ors. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 461 of 2019, wherein this Appellate Tribunal dealt with a similar issue and held that the Adjudicating Authority cannot direct the CoC to consider the second Resolution Plan submitted by the Authority although the second Resolution Applicant is ready to invest more amount in comparison to first Resolution Applicant. The Adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Yogesh Gupta and Ors. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 903 of 2019; para 16; Appeal against this judgment (CA No.1435 of 2020) dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.02.2020) A person who does not participate in the CIRP cannot claim to be aggrieved of the order passed by Adjudicating Authority approving the resolution plan, presented by a duly qualified Resolution Applicant. The appellant is a rank outsider standing on the sidelines who has attempted to intervene in the Plan Approval proceedings at a much belated stage, by filing an applicant on 09.07.2020, and that too, for directions to the RP and CoC to consider its proposal, albeit without any proposal at all, for RP to provide access to data room and other information, to enable it to present a plan at such belated stage. Such intervention cannot be permitted at the instance of a busybody, as it has a cascading effect on the resolution of Corporate Debtor, and the very sanctity of the CIRP. The Appeal filed by the Appellant, as well as the relief sought therein would amply reveal the mala fide intent with which the appeal has been filed. The Appeal filed by the Appellant, under the garb of challenging ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r submitted an EOI, or a resolution plan during the CIRP to qualify as a prospective resolution applicant. After the CIRP was concluded. Interups submitted a bald proposal, which was rightly rejected by the Resolution Professional as grossly delayed. Interups submitted a speculative proposal seeking to conduct due diligence on the Corporate Debtor and to formulate a resolution plan, nearly one year after the CIRP was concluded by approval of the JSW Plan by the CoC and application being filed by the Resolution Professional before the adjudicating Authority. Interups neither qualifies as a resolution applicant nor as prospective resolution applicant. The Hon ble Supreme Court has held that even a resolution applicant or prospective resolution applicant has no vested right to challenge the decision of the CoC and to have its plan approved or considered by the CoC under the IBC. Further, this Appellate Tribunal has held that any proposals or expression of interest to submit a resolution plan cannot be entertained after the CIRP period has expired. This Appellate Tribunal has also held that RP considering any plan after the deadline, would be illegal and liable to be set aside. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of a corporate debtor which is now under a new management unless provision is made in the final Resolution Plan . IN the present case such a provision has been provided for in the JSW Plan. The same is reproduced below: 1.12 (o) Reversal of preferential transactions, undervalued transactions, extortionate transactions and fraudulent trading: The reversal of these transactions by the NCLT upon submission of the resolution plan to the NCLT for its approval, will be to the benefit of the Company and the Company will not be required to transfer any such amounts/assets to the creditors. Any claim from any counter party of the aforesaid transactions (in further) arising due to reversal of such transactions shall stand extinguished. The Resolution Professional shall conduct and pursue the litigation for reversal of such transactions till their final disposal (including any appeals). The costs of such litigation for the Resolution Professional shall be borne by the Resolution Professional. The decision on CA 613/2019 is not a pre-requisite for approval of resolution plan. Therefore, the Delhi High Court Judgment is inapplicable to the present case. V. CIRP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
