TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Applicants to submit a Resolution Plan for its consideration within a period one month are clearly unsustainable in view of the recent judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Kalpraj Dharamshi Anr. V. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. Anr [ 2021 (3) TMI 496 - SUPREME COURT] , which squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Application allowed. - Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Insolvency)No. 23 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 19-4-2021 - (Justice Venugopal M.) Member(Judicial) And (V. P. Singh) Member(Technical) For the Appellant : Mr.R.Vidhya Shankar, Advocate For the Resolution Professional : Mr.Aneesh, V., Advocate JUDGEMENT ( VIRTUAL MODE ) Venugopal M. J INTRODUCTION : The Appellant /Successful Resolution Applicant has filed the present Appeal being dissatisfied with the order dated 24.02.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (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 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 was compliant with the requirements of section 30(2) of the I B Code, 2016, was duty bound to sanction the Resolution Plan of the Appellant and in fact, had exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions in the impugned order to rebid in an endeavour to maximise the value. 7. It is represented on behalf of the Appellant/Successful Resolution Applicant that the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order had not rendered a finding that the sanctioned plan was found wanting in regard to any of the requirements under section 30(2) of the I B Code, 2016. 8. The primordial submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the Respondent/Resolution Professional had certified that the Sanctioned Plan was compliant with all the requirements of the I B Code, 2016 and Regulations and as such, the Adjudicating Authority was statutorily obligated to sancti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant brings to the notice of this Tribunal in the present case, the Committee of Creditors with 100% voting share had approved the Resolution Plan submitted by KALS Group and projects a plea that it is the Commercial decision of the Committee Creditors in approving or rejecting a certain Resolution Plan. RESPONDENT SUBMISSIONS: 15. The Learned Counsel for Respondent submits that the Adjudicating Authority by passing the impugned order had exceeded its jurisdiction 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on taken by CoC by a thumping majority of 84.36%. 157. It is further to be noted, that after the resolution plan of Kalpraj was approved by NCLT on 28.11.2019, Kalpraj had begun implementing the resolution plan. NCLAT had heard the appeals on 27.2.2020 and reserved the same for orders. It is not in dispute, that there was no stay granted by NCLAT, while reserving the matters for orders. After a gap of five months and eight days, NCLAT passed the final order on 5.8.2020. It could thus be seen, that for a long period, there was no restraint on implementation of the resolution plan of Kalpraj, which was duly approved by NCLT. It is the case of Kalpraj, RP, CoC and Deutsche Bank, that during the said period, various steps have been taken by Kalpraj by spending a huge amount for implementation of the plan. No doubt, this is sought to be disputed by KIAL. However, we do not find it necessary to go into that aspect of the matter in light of our conclusion, that NCLAT acted in excess of jurisdiction in interfering with the conscious commercial decision of Coc. 158. It is also pointed out, that in pursuance of the order dated 5.8.2020 passed by NCLAT, CoC has approved the resoluti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
