TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aving passed an order so as to balance the position of the respective parties and to provide level playing field by granting corresponding permission to the other resolution applicant to place its modification for consideration of CoC. The view taken by the Adjudicating Authority as also by the Appellate Tribunal appears to be reasonable and sound, calling for no interference. Appeal dismissed. - Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2022 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath For the Parties : Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shikhar Khare, Adv., M/s. Kings And Alliance LLP, AOR, Mr. Nilotpal Shyam, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Sidhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Adv., Mrs. Babita Jain, Adv., Ms. Aarushi Singh, Adv., Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv., Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR, Ms. Shailija Das, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv., Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, AOR, Mr. Pracheta Kar, Adv., Mr. Aditya Sidhra, Adv. And Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv. ORDER DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellant at sufficient length and having p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s invited to have detailed deliberations on the Resolution Plan submitted by, consortium of Prabhat Warehouse and Cold Storage Limited Mr. Ajay Gupta and during the course of deliberations, defects/technical difficulty were pointed out and thereafter, representative of Resolution Applicant, namely, consortium of Prabhat Warehouse and Cold Storage Limited and Mr. Ajay Gupta assured that all defects will be removed to the extent possible and to the satisfaction of the COC and Resolution Professional and left the meeting room. No further objections/issues were raised by any other participant of the meeting and accordingly, representative of the said Resolution Applicant, left the meeting thereafter. After the aforesaid deliberations/observations of CoC, the appellant sent a communication dated 18.11.2021 and annexed therewith his affidavit dated 17.11.2021 in the so-called clarification in respect of the resolution plan . The contents of this affidavit dated 17.11.2021 read as under: - AFFIDAVIT I, Ajay Gupta, a director in Prabhat Warehouse Cold Storage Private Limited and on behalf of Ajay Gupta individual, which form a consortium and being the lead member of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o make the following amendments:- (a) To uncaps the CIRP costs on conditions stated therein; (b) To reduce term of the plan from 180 days to 90 days. At this point of time, we are conscious of the fact that the CIRP period will come to end on 06.01.2022 and a decision on the resolution plans will have to be taken first by the CoC and, thereafter by this Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the ends of justice will be met if we direct the applicant herein to place the affidavits at Page Nos. 290 to 298 alongwith the covering letter addressed to the sole member of the CoC for consideration. Since we do not wish to disturb level playing field, the other resolution applicants whose plans are also being considered will also be permitted to place any modification in their submitted resolution plan before the CoC for its consideration. Such modifications shall be communicated to the CoC, no later than 48 hours from now. Accordingly, IA No. 367/2021 is disposed of. Thereafter, the resolution plans were considered by the CoC on 21/22.12.2021 and the plan of the other resolution applicant was approved. The appellant, on the other hand, attempted to quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 13.12.2021, this much is clear that certain key features/stipulations of the resolution plan were sought to be amended by the appellant. Whether it was done in response to the requirement of the CoC or otherwise, the fact of the matter remains that there was going to be modification of the relevant terms of the resolution plan of the appellant. When that was being permitted at the request of the appellant himself, we cannot find fault in the Adjudicating Authority having passed an order so as to balance the position of the respective parties and to provide level playing field by granting corresponding permission to the other resolution applicant to place its modification for consideration of CoC. So far as affidavit dated 17.11.2021 is concerned, though the appellant stated in paragraph 3 thereof that the payment of upfront amount under the resolution plan was in no way going to modify the plan but, that had only been an expression of the understanding of the appellant about the legal effect of the propositions put forward by him, which included the modification of the term of plan from 180 days to 90 days. Such a proposition could not have been treated as formal or innoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
