TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ute has not invested jurisdiction and authority either with NCLT or NCLAT to review the commercial decision exercised by the CoC of approving the resolution plan or rejecting the same. It is also to be noted that in this Appeal the Appellant has raised the ground that the CoC has rejected the OTS cum Compromise proposals without assigning any valid reason and without any suitable opportunity to the Appellant to discuss with the Respondent No. 1 on OTS Proposals. Such objection was never raised before the Adjudicating Authority. There is no allegation against the liquidator and no prayer for replacement of liquidator was made. The Appellant in the Appeal first time prayed for replacement of the liquidator. Such prayer cannot be conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the RP filed an Application before the Adjudicating Authority for liquidation. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 31.07.2019 allowed the Application and directing the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and appointed Mr. Yogesh Shethi (Respondent No. 2) as Liquidator. Against the order of liquidation, the Appellant has filed CA (AT) (Ins) No. 947 of 2019 before this Appellate Tribunal. This Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 06.02.2020 directed the liquidator to take steps in terms of the Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 (in short Act), before taking steps to sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor. On 09.11.2020 the Appellant submitted One Time Settlement (OTS) cum Compromise proposal under Section 230 of the Act, offering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the NCLT, Delhi Bench in I.A. No.346 of 2021 in CP ((IB) 495 (ND)/2017 or in the alternative. (b) Pass an order staying the action taken by the Respondent No. 1 2. (c) Pass an order for replacement of the liquidator. (d) Pass an order to look for settlement on the basis of order in I.A No. 4170 of 2019 in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 947 of 2019, in which, order was passed by the NCLAT approving liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor ₹ 150 Lacs. (e) Pass any other order (s) or direction as this Appellate Tribunal may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the OTS proposals on behalf of the Corporate Debtor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le or resolve the debt at the liquidation value only. There is no provision in the IBC or Regulations requiring a bid of any Resolution Applicant to match the liquidation value. In the absence of violation of any provisions it is the CoC which prevails rather than any quantitative analysis, the CoC after due consideration, rejected the OTS Proposals on the ground of non-viability of such low offer. Thus, the rejection by CoC is based on valid grounds. The statue has not an invested jurisdiction and authority either with the NCLT or NCLAT to review the commercial decision of the CoC, for this proposition, he placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CoC Essar Steel India Ltd. Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta 2019 SCC Onli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n against the Respondent No. 2 in I.A. No. 346 of 2021 wherein impugned order was passed. Surprisingly, in the instant Appeal, Appellant prayed for replacement of Liquidator. Such prayer may not be allowed. The Respondent No. 2 being a liquidator is duty bound to liquidate the Corporate Debtor Company in time bound manner as mandated by the law. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. Thus, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. After hearing ld. Counsel for the parties we have gone through the record. 9. Issue for our consideration is that whether the Adjudicating Authority committed any error while dismissing the Application I.A. No. 346 of 2021. 10. In the Application I.A. No. 346 of 2021, the Appellant sought the relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l review available, which can in no circumstance trespass upon a business decision of the majority of Committee of Creditors, has to be within the four corners of section 30 (2) of the Code, in so far as the Adjudicating Authority is concerned, and Section 32 read with section 61(3) of the Code, in so far as the Appellate Tribunal is concerned, the parameters of such review having been clearly laid down in K. Sashidhar. 13. There is no allegation against the liquidator in I.A. No. 346 of 2021 and no prayer for replacement of liquidator was made. The Appellant in the Appeal first time prayed for replacement of the liquidator. Such prayer cannot be considered at this stage, particularly when there is no allegation in the Application. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
