TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven while inviting EoI, is unsustainable. It is seen from the record that the Appellant sought the indulgence of the RP to place its offer before the CoC for consideration vide emails dated 15.06.2020 and 16.06.2021, which were placed before the CoC by the Resolution Professional, but as the last date for submission of EoI has expired, the CoC rejected the same. Admittedly, the last date for submission of EoI s was 06.03.2021 and the extended last date for submission of Resolution Plan was 10.05.2021 and it is pertinent to note that the email sent by the Appellant herein is dated 13.06.2021, which is much after the last date - Regulation 36A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, clearly stipulates that the Expression of Interest received after the time specified in the limitation under clause (b) of sub-Regulation (3) shall be rejected . The legislative intent of the statute together with the fact that in the instant case the Resolution Plan was accepted by 100% of voting share in the CoC Meeting dated 21.06.2021 and having regard to the fact that the Appellant had never participated in the Eo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on bearing IA No. 2763 of 2021 (after careful consideration by this Tribunal) was dismissed on 8th July, 2021 has appeared before the Tribunal (virtual mode) and submitted that they have preferred an appeal against the orders of the NCLT in the above matter and the said matter is now posted to 23.09.2021 and prayed for deferring the finalization of the present Application. Present application filed by the Resolution Professional (I.A. No. 2714 of 2021). The Counsel has also submitted that his client is willing to deposit an amount of ₹ 60 crores before 23.09.2021 to show the bonafides and seriousness about the matter. This Tribunal has also been apprised by the Resolution Professional that this company i.e. the unsuccessful Resolution Applicant, Amanat Randhawa Hotels Pvt. Limited has come into existence in the year 2020 and may not be financially sound organization to fulfil its huge offer commitment of the Resolution Plan which is approximately ₹ 121 Crores for the buyout of the Corporate Debtor. Having considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the Resolution Professional, Counsel for the Amanat Randhawa Hotels Pvt. Ltd., counsel for the Members of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the RP within 7 working days else the same shall be forfeited the balance ₹ 50 Crore was directed to be paid on or before 23.09.2021. 7. It is vehemently contended by the Counsel that the Adjudicating Authority ought not to have imposed any conditions while allowing them to file their claim before CoC and that the aforenoted directions in the Impugned Order was akin to penalizing the Appellant herein; that the condition of forfeiting the amount of ₹ 10 Crores is arbitrary and that the Appellant had given a very good offer of ₹ 121 Crores as opposed to ₹ 67.49 Crores offered by the Successful Resolution Applicant and hence the Order of the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. 2714 of 2021 is unjustified. 8. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondent, the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor and the second Respondent who is appearing on behalf of Committee of Creditors and also Mr. Singh, who appeared for the Successful Resolution Applicant. 9. It is not in dispute that the IRP issued the Public Announcement under Section 15 of the Code on 25.12.2020 in Form A in the Financial Express (English) in Delhi and Chandigarh Ed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant herein is dated 13.06.2021, which is much after the last date. At this juncture, it is relevant to reproduce the discussion by the CoC on the offer made by the Appellant in their Meeting dated 17.06.2021:- Mr. Arora that the RP is supposed to follow the process and the timelines as decided by the CoC and at this stage it was not possible to entertain any new offers. Mr. Arora however insisted that the party should be given an opportunity to give EMD and participate in the process. RP stated that the same was not as per the provisions of law. At this juncture, Mr. Anoop Bali from TFCI also explained to Mr. Arora that there are several Resolution Applicants who have followed the due process of law and RFRP and submitted their plans as per timelines. He stated that although at this juncture he is not aware about the financial offers contained therein, however, it would be unfair to the persons who have already submitted their plans to allow any other third party who has expressed his desire to submit a Plan, which is way past the established timelines. He stated that the CoC, in their commercial wisdom will consider the compliant plans already received as per timelines and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in Ghanshyam Mishra Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. Ors. Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2019 has observed as follows:- 57. It could thus be seen, that the legislature has given paramount importance to the commercial wisdom of CoC and the scope of judicial review by Adjudicating Authority is limited to the extent provided under Section 31 of I B Code and of the Appellate Authority is limited to the extent provided under subsection (3) of Section 61 of the I B Code, is no more res integra. 58. Bare reading of Section 31 of the I B Code would also make it abundantly clear, that once the resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, after it is satisfied, that the resolution plan as approved by CoC meets the requirements as referred to in subsection (2) of Section 30, it shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders. Such a provision is necessitated since one of the dominant purposes of the I B Code is, revival of the Corporate Debtor and to make it a running concern. 17. This Tribunal in Chhatisgarh Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Dushyant Dave Ors. Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
