TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lution Professional issued a final list of the Prospective Resolution Applicants in which Respondent No.3 was also included - delay in submission of Expression of Interest by Tata Steel Mining Limited was condoned by the CoC in its meeting held on 18.03.2021 and e-voting results dated 20.03.2021. It is well settled that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is to be given due regard. The CoC having decided to condone the delay in submission of Expression of Interest by Respondent No.3 and to include the Respondent No.3 in the list of Resolution Applicants, no exception can be taken by the Appellant to the decision of the CoC. The object of the IBC is to maximise the assets of the Corporate Debtor and as noted above, in the 19th CoC meeting, earlier Resolution Applicants were requested to revise the financial proposal. Thus, by the time Respondent Nos.3 was permitted to submit a Resolution Plan neither any Resolution Plan was accepted nor even put to e-vote. Hence, the commercial wisdom of the CoC to accept the Respondent No.3 as Prospective Resolution Applicant cannot be faulted. The submission raised by the Appellant on the basis of Scheme of Arrangement under Section 230 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f India against the Corporate Debtor- Rohit Ferro Tech Limited was admitted. In pursuance of the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), the Resolution Professional published statutory Form G on 10.12.2020 inviting Expression of Interest (EoI). The provisional list of the Prospective Resolution Applicants as per Form- G issued on 10.12.2020 was published on 26.12.2020. As on 01.01.2021, the Resolution Professional had identified eight Prospective Resolution Applicants. The list of Prospective Resolution Applicants was updated on 25.01.2021 and on 20.03.2021, the said list was again updated including Respondent No.3. In the 19th CoC meeting, Resolution Plans submitted by the Resolution Applicants were opened. Resolution Professional informed all Resolution Applicants that CoC in its meeting dated 18.03.2021 decided to extend the last date for submission of revised financial proposal/ Resolution Plan on 25.03.2021. The Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No.3 was considered. The Respondent No.3 held to be H-1. The Resolution Plan of Respondent No.3 was ultimately approved by the CoC by 100% votes in its meeting dated 01.06.2021. After the plan was appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the record. 4. As per Form- G published, the last date for submission of the Expression of Interest was 31.12.2020. The list of Prospective Resolution Applicants was also uploaded. It is true that in the 18th meeting of the CoC dated 02.03.2021, the CoC took note of the three Resolution Plans which were received from Mainthan Alloys Limited , ESL Steel Limited and Rimjhim Ispat Private Limited . However, minutes of the 18th meeting of the CoC indicate that Resolution Plans were not voted upon in the said meeting. Similarly, in the 19th CoC meeting dated 08.03.2021 detailed discussion was made on the Resolution Plans received from the Resolution Applicants. The minutes under Agenda Item No.5 noticed that Applicants were requested to reconsider the financial proposal made by them. On 20.03.2021, the Resolution Professional issued a final list of the Prospective Resolution Applicants in which Respondent No.3 was also included. In the final list, following note was approved with respect to Respondent No.3 Tata Steel Mining Limited -:- **The Expression of Interest (EOI) from M/s. Tata Steel Mining Limited was received by me on 16th March, 2021, i.e. after the expiry of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of assets of the Corporate Debtor. We do not find any infirmity in the above findings of the Adjudicating Authority and we do not find any substance in the submissions of the Counsel for the Appellant. 6. Now, the next submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is with regard to Scheme filed under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. It is true that the Adjudicating Authority in its order dated 18.12.2019 noticed the Application C.A. (C.A.A.) No. 1683/KB of 2019 filed under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 wherein the Adjudicating Authority granted four weeks time to the Corporate Debtor to convene the meeting of the Creditors and get the approval of the Scheme of Arrangement. It is on record that in spite of the opportunity granted by the Adjudicating Authority, the Scheme of Arrangement never came to be approved. No creditor other than State Bank of India attended the meeting. The State Bank of India has also intimated the Applicant by an e-mail dated 09.12.2020 that the financial proposal under the Scheme of Arrangement was not tenable in law. The creditor having not agreed with the Scheme, no reliance can be placed by the Appellant on the said S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the provisions of the IBC lies in a similar continuum. Thus, the prohibitions that apply in the former situations must naturally also attach to the latter to ensure that like situations are treated equally. 8. The submission raised by the Appellant on the basis of Scheme of Arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 was elaborately considered by the Adjudicating Authority and it has been rightly held that the said Scheme having never been approved by the Creditors cannot come to any benefit of the Appellant and further after initiation of the CIRP, the present Appellant who is Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor is hit by Section 29A of the Code. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, thus, on the basis of Scheme of Arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 has no substance. The Adjudicating Authority by a very elaborate and well considered order has discussed all the submissions which were raised on behalf of the Appellant and has rightly rejected the submission. The Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is a well considered order which needs no interference by us in exercise of our Appellate Jurisdiction. 9. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
