9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad) in IA No. 1094 /2020 in CP No. 153/7/HDB/2019 (filed by the 'Appellant/Applicant/Resolution Professional') under section 36 of the I & B Code, 2016 read with Regulation 39 (4) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. 2. Earlier, the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad) while passing the impugned order dated 24.02.2021 had among other things at paragraph 3 and 4 observed the following: 3. "The Resolution Professional has compared both the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s. KALS Group and Mr. Chava Suresh Babu. The Resolution Plan submitted by both the Resolution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in CP No. 153/7/HDB/2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad), the Learned Counsel for the 'Appellants' submits that the Adjudicating Authority had committed an error in considering the fact that the 'Resolution Plan' of the 'unsuccessful Resolution Applicants' were rejected by the 'Committee of Creditors' since they had not met the 66% criteria and were denied the right to a second vote by an order dated 17.02.2020, could be given a new lease of life, in the application of the 'Interim Resolution Professional' for the sanction of the Appellant's plan. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the 'Adjudicating Authority' upon satisfaction that the 'Sanctioned Plan' w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g, despite the approval of the Resolution Plan by the 'Committee of Creditors' with a vote share of 84.70%'? and it was held that a direction for rebidding, despite approval of a Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors was not valid in Law and that any direction for maximisation of value of the Corporate Debtor also amounts to an interference in the business decision of the Committee of Creditors. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Adjudicating Authority in IA No. 1188/2020 in IA No. 1094/2020 in CP (IB) 153/7/HDB/2019 (Filed by the Applicant/Resolution Applicant under section 60(5) of the I & B Code, 2016 on 17.02.2021 passed an order by coming to the conclusion that there cannot be any interference with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdiction showered on it, under the I & B Code, 2016, by ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Sashidhar v Indian Overs Seas Bank reported in (2019) SCC Online SC 257. 16. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent contends that the Adjudicating Authority while directing the 'Committee of Creditors' to invite 'fresh bids' had completely lost site of the fact that the other unsuccessful resolution applicants (Mr. Suresh Babu Chava in with Devi Innoventures LLP, secured only 55.58% of the total voting share of the 'Financial Creditors' whereas the Appellant (Successful Resolution Applicant" had secured 100% of the total voting shares of the 'Financial Creditors'. 17. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent points out that the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... event he found, that the proposals received by it prior to the date specified in last Form 'G' could not be accepted. However, it has been the consistent stand of RP as well as CoC, that all actions of RP, including acceptance of resolution plans of Kalpraj after the due date, albeit before the expiry of timeline specified by the I&B Code for completion of the process, have been consciously approved by CoC. It is to be noted, that the decision of CoC is taken by a thumping majority of 84.36%. The only creditor voted in favour of KIAL is Kotak Bank, which is a holding company of KIAL, having voting rights of 0.97%. We are of the considered view, that in view of the paramount importance given to the decision of CoC, which is to be taken on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion plan of KIAL by CoC becomes non-est in law. For, it was only to abide by the directions of NCLAT. We are of the view that nothing would turn on it. The decision of CoC dated 13/14.2.2019 is a decision, which has been taken in exercise of its 'commercial wisdom'. As such, we hold, that the decision taken by CoC dated 13/14.2.2019, which is taken in accordance with its 'commercial wisdom' and which is only approved by NCLT, will prevail. Further, NCLAT was not justified in interfering with the stated decision taken by CoC. 159. In that view of the matter, we find, that Civil Appeal Nos.2943-2944 of 2020 filed by Kalpraj: Civil Appeal Nos.2949-2950 of 2020 filed by RP and Civil Appeal Nos.3138-3139 of 2020 filed by Deutsche Bank deserve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
