TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex Court has held Certain allegations were made by the MSL over failure on the part of the Resolution Professional in taking possession of the assets of the corporate debtor and subsequently in their failure in handing over the same to MSL. These issues are factual. The ratio of the aforenoted Judgment directly contradicts the contention of the Appellant that the bid value has to match the liquidation value. It is significant to mention that the Resolution Plan has already been implemented and we do not wish to set the clock back. This Tribunal is of the considered view that there is no illegality in the Order of the Adjudicating Authority dismissing the Intervention Application - Appeal dismissed. - [Justice M. Venugopal] Member (Judicial) And [Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Pritesh A. Burad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Pradeep Joy, Advocate, For R1/RP Mr. P.H. Arvindh Pandian, Senior Advocate For Mr. Avinash Krishnan Ravi, Advocate, For R2 JUDGMENT ( Virtual Mode ) [ Per : Shreesha Merla , Member ( Technical ) ] 1. The Appellant has preferred Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 326/2023, aggrieved by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ublication for extension of time was issued nor was it published on the IBBI website. It is submitted that the RP admitted the Appellant s Claim on 13/09/2022, even though the Claim was submitted by the Appellant way back on 19/04/2022. As per advertisement dated 20/07/2022, the last date for submission of Expression of Interest ( EOI ) was 04/08/2022 and the last date for submission of the Resolution Plan was 09/09/2022. It is the case of the Appellant that the RP without determining the Claim amounts has directed the Prospective Resolution Applicant ( PRA ) to submit the Resolution Plan. The RP also did not circulate the Minutes of the Meetings by electronic means to the Appellant by violating Regulation 25 (5) (a). Regulation 37 of CIRP Regulations speaks about maximisation of the value of the Corporate Debtor s assets, whereas in the instant case, the assets of the Corporate Debtor are grossly undervalued. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant in support of his submissions placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the matter of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorised Signatory Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta Ors. reported in [(20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Creditors 100 % (INR 0.28 Cr.) (c) Operational Creditors 10 % (INR 2.84 Cr.) (d) Other debts and dues 100 % (INR 0.44 Cr.) 10. It is also submitted that the offer by the Applicant / the Appellant was submitted after the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC and the question whether the amount is below the liquidation value or not is left to the commercial wisdom of the CoC and the Operational Creditor being the unsuccessful Resolution Applicant cannot challenge the Plan on that ground. Evaluation: 11. At the outset, we address to whether the Appellant has any vested right to file a Resolution Plan pursuant to the process in published Form G. It is seen from the record that the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC and the Letter of Intent ( LOI ) was issued to the SRA on 09/11/2022. IA No. 1410/2022 was filed subsequently on 10/11/2022. IA No. 1314/2022 was filed by the RP seeking approval of the Resolution Plan on 11/11/2022. It is significant to mention that the Appellant sought to intervene in IA No. 1344/2022 by filing an Application only on 25/11/2022. It is also on record that Notice for the 7th CoC Meeting was sent to the Appellant on 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.-60(PB)/2018 is still pending Adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority and that the Appellant has no vested right for consideration of its Resolution Plan as they only continue to remain a prospective Resolution Applicant. At this juncture, it is significant to mention that the Order passed by this Tribunal in Kalinga Allied Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), has set aside the Order of the Adjudicating Authority observing as follows: With the aforesaid, we are of the view that when the Application for approval of Resolution Plan is pending before the Adjudicating Authority at that time the Adjudicating Authority cannot entertain an Application of a person who has not participated in CIRP even when such person is ready to pay more amount in comparison to the successful Resolution Applicant. If a Resolution Plan is considered beyond the time-limit then it will make a Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 518 of 2020 never-ending process. Thus, impugned order is not sustainable in law as well as in fact. The impugned Order is hereby set aside. 9. This Order has attained finality and no fresh consideration of any Resolution Plan at this stage can be entertained. It is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
