TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sole authority to accept or reject a Resolution Plan and after their approval only the Adjudicating Authority can interfere in the matter, either approve or return the Plan to them for any modification as suggested by this Tribunal. This Tribunal cannot exercise the power of appellate authority to set aside a Resolution Plan approved by this Tribunal under Section 31 of IBC, 2016. Section 31(1) of the Code lays down in clear terms that for final approval of a Resolution Plan, the Adjudicating Authority has to be satisfied that the requirement of Sub-Section (2) of Section 30 of the Code has been complied with. The proviso to Section 31(1) of the Code stipulates the other point on which an Adjudicating Authority has to be satisfied. This Tribunal finds no reason to entertain this Application - Application dismissed. - I.A.(IBC) No. 56/KOB/2021 In TIBA No.11/KOB/2019 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2021 - MR. ASHOK KUMAR BORAH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For applicant : Mr. Akhil Suresh, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.Bijoy Prabhakaran Pulipra, RP ORDER This is an application filed as IA(IBC)56/KOB/2021 on 22nd February, 2021 (after curing the defects) under Section 60(5) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent Resolution Applicant is per se violation of Section 61(3) of the I B Code and Regulation 35(2) of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate persons) Regulations, 2016. (g) The Resolution Professional has colluded with the successful resolution applicant, which is contrary to the decision given by the Hon ble Apex Court in Swiss Ribbon s case. (h) The Resolution Applicant had access to the valuation reports obtained by the respondents which again violation of the breach of confidentiality under Regulation 35(2) of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate persons) Regulations, 2016. (i) After the Ernakulam district administration took the hospital for Covid Care Centre the property of corporate debtor is a running concern and the value quoted by the valuer is not correct. The valuers should have mandatorily consider the aspect of the corporate debtor being a running concern. The valuers have valued the property as stressed assets, hence the valuation reports are illegal and liable to be rejected. (j) Earlier a valuation report was obtained by the Corporate Debtor in 2018 for value of ₹ 4,23,17,00,000 from Er,.KV Kuriakose, Chartered Engineer. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... editors held on 14th October, 2020, Mr. P V Chandran, Promoter of the Corporate Debtor had opined that the amount quoted by the Resolution Applicant is extremely low and requested the Respondent to provide an opportunity to a person within his contact circle to submit a Resolution Plan for consideration of the Committee. Since the time limit prescribed under the Code for submission of the Expression of Interest was already exhausted, the Respondent herein opined that a fresh Resolution Plan shall be considered only with the approval of the Adjudicating Authority based on the decision of the Committee of Creditors. The Respondent had also requested Mr. P V Chandran to update on the specifics of the proposal, detailing the name of the prospective applicant and the time limit within which they can submit the entire plan in compliance with the provisions of the Code to enable the CoC to take appropriate actions. Even though Mr. P V Chandran informed that the said details shall be submitted to Resolution Professional by email at the earliest opportunity, no such email was sent to the Respondent till date and none of the promoters had neither submitted a fresh plan to RP nor presented a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h June, 2020, 0lst July, 2020, 09th July, 2020, 28th August, 2020 requesting them to rectify the defects in the Expression of Interest in order to be eligible to participate in the Resolution Plan Submission Process. It was further stated that the Promoters of the Corporate Debtor had not made any effort to reply and rectify the discrepancies brought to their attention by the Respondent, with the sole intention to unnecessarily prolong the CIRP with ulterior motives. 6. The Committee of Creditors had laid down the eligibility criteria for prospective resolution application in accordance with Section 25(2)(h) of the Code and also defined the capacity, technical as well as financial of the prospective resolution applicants. The applicant being a federal cooperative society formed with an objective of providing an equitable socio economic financial security, infrastructural through the togetherness of Non Resident and Residents of the country to provide a quality life to all the members, does not fulfil the eligibility criteria for the prospective Resolution Applicants. In the matter of Kalinga Alied Industrial (India) Pvt. Limited -CA(AT) Insolvency No.518 of 2020 the Hon ble NCLA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to match liquidation value arrived at in the manner provided in Clause 35 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. This point has been dealt with in the case of Essar Steel (supra). We have quoted above the relevant passages from this judgment. 27. It appears to us that the object behind prescribing such valuation process is to assist the CoC to take decision on a resolution plan properly. Once, a resolution plan is approved by the CoC, the statutory mandate on the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(1) of the Code is to ascertain that a resolution plan meets the requirement of sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 30 thereof. We, per se, do not find any breach of the said provisions in the order of the Adjudicating Authority in approving the resolution plan. 8. Respondent received the valuation reports from the Registered Valuers during May, 2020. The value arrived at by the Registered Valuers are mere guiding light to the CoC to take a commercial decision and the said estimated values are not binding on the CoC. The 15.92% variance in the value of the land in two reports is not a signific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to accept or reject a Resolution Plan and after their approval only the Adjudicating Authority can interfere in the matter, either approve or return the Plan to them for any modification as suggested by this Tribunal. This Tribunal cannot exercise the power of appellate authority to set aside a Resolution Plan approved by this Tribunal under Section 31 of IBC, 2016. 12. Section 31(1) of the Code lays down in clear terms that for final approval of a Resolution Plan, the Adjudicating Authority has to be satisfied that the requirement of Sub-Section (2) of Section 30 of the Code has been complied with. The proviso to Section 31(1) of the Code stipulates the other point on which an Adjudicating Authority has to be satisfied. In the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta, decided on 15th November, 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8766-8767 of 2019 (2019 SCC Online SC 1478).) it was held that the scope of interference by the Adjudicating Authority is a limited judicial review. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the reliefs sought for by the applicants cannot be granted, hence this Tribunal finds no reason to entertain this Application. In view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
