TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omotion of entrepreneurship alive. The Adjudicating Authority has only provided an opportunity to the MSME and has given the liberty to the CoC to negotiate with existing Resolution Applicant and MSME unit also and accept the one which is commercially viable and technically feasible. There are no infirmity in the order - appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 160 of 2021 & I.A. No. 1117 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 7-9-2021 - [Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial) And (Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra) Member(Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad BF and Mr. Aditya Shukla, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, Advocates for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Sidhartha Barua and Mr. Praful Jindal, Advocates for Respondent No. 2.Mr. Anand Verma and Mr. Abhishek Prasad, Advocates for Respondent No. 3. JUDGMENT DR. ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant' PLBB Products Pvt. Ltd (PLBB) under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short Code ) against the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tempt to repay such a big amount. 2. The prayer made in this IA is accepted to the following extent only- (1) One chance is given to the Suspended Management of the CD, an MSME Unit as prayed for to submit a concrete composite Feasible and Viable Resolution Plan by 01.03.2021. No other one is allowed to submit any Plan. (2) The Resolution Professional will place the Resolution Plan immediately, if submitted in time, before the COC for their examination of the proposal in line with the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India on 15.11.2019 in the case of COC of Essar Steel India Ltd. Vs Satish Kumar Gupta others. (3) The information relating to the CD etc. made available to the present Resolution Applicant shall be made available to the Suspended Management of the CD for enabling them to submit a Resolution Plan. (4) The COC is at liberty to negotiate with the existing Resolution Applicant, the Suspended Management and accept the one which is commercially viable, technically feasible based upon the ground realities by a majority with a view to achieving maximisation of value of assets, promotion of entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balanci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to file this appeal. The Respondent no.1 has also raised that the RP of the Corporate Debtor has not provided him a copy of the Resolution Plan submitted by the Appellant to the CoC in accordance with Regulation 21 (III) of the IBBI Regulation and thereby violated non-compliance of Hon ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Vijay Kumar Jain Vs. Standard Chartered Bank Ors. In Civil Appeal No. 8430 of 2018 vide para 13 as enumerated below: It is also important to note that every participant is entitled to a notice of every meeting of the committee of creditors. Such notice of meeting must contain an agenda of the meeting, together with the copies of all documents relevant for matters to be discussed and the issues to be voted upon at the meeting vide Regulation 21(3)(iii). Obviously, resolution plans are matters to be discussed at such meetings, and the erstwhile Board of Directors are participants who will discuss these issues. The expression documents is a wide expression which would certainly include resolution plans. He has raised the issue of misleading CoC and Adjudicating Authority on the RP and he has taken post facto approval of the CoC and is facilitating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, the IA was heard on 19.01.2021 apart from other dates and the reply has been submitted by the Corporate Debtor (CD) and RP has been asked to submit rejoinder. Hearing has taken place on subsequent dates via video conference, awaiting disposal. 6. We have gone through the submission made by the parties and the relevant records produced before this Appellate Tribunal and after carefully considering all the issues, we are having following observations: a. This is the case of the CD which is an MSME Unit, a corporate guarantor to the principal borrower National Board Limited. The CD was established on 11.12.1973. b. Original amount of loan given to the principal borrower was ₹ 3.07 crore, a claim has been filed by the Financial Creditor for ₹ 133 Crore plus. c. The CD has paid ₹ 92.24 lacs on OTS worked out way back in 2005 for ₹ 2.16 crore approximately. d. Section 29-A R/w Section 240-A of the Code refers to the Resolution Applicant in respect of CIRP of any MSME and these two sections provide for certain reliefs to the promoter of the MSME as a prospective Resolution Applicant and is entitled to have opportunity to place Resolution Plan. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
