9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were preferred by the Appellant, i.e., NOIDA Special Economic Zone Authority, being the Operational Creditor (hereinafter referred to as "Appellant") impugning the Order dated 05.10.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority of National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (hereinafter referred to as "NCLT") approving the Resolution Plan as presented on the approval by the Committee of Creditors, and also the Order dated 27.11.2020 vide which an application preferred by the Appellant, challenging the approval of the Resolution Plan, stood rejected. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the Respondent No.02, i.e., Shree Bhoomika International Limited, being the Corporate Debtor (hereinafter referred to as "Corporate Debtor") was sub-leased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt on 17.07.2019 as per the prescribed procedure. 4. In pursuance thereto, the Appellant filed a claim of INR 6,29,18,121/- (Rupees Six Crores Twenty Nine Lakhs Eighteen Thousand and One Hundred Twenty One only) which was admitted by the Respondent No.01 - Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred to as "RP") in entirety. Valuation of the Corporate Debtor was thereby conducted by two different valuers, and an average thereof was carried out, leading to the fixing of the liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor at INR 04.25 Crores. The Appellant had put forth that the valuers had also observed that the valuations derived by them could be realised, subject to fulfilment of the rules of NSEZ and procedure of approval thereof. 5. The Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT. 8. Thereafter, the Appellant moved appeals under Section 61 of IBC 2016 before the NCLAT, challenging both the orders, as referred to above. These appeals were also dismissed vide the impugned Judgment dated 14.02.2022. 9. The grievance put forth by the Appellant is with regard to the Appellant not being informed about the auction proceedings which were initiated at behest of the RP, thus, depriving it of its participation in the said proceedings. Once the total claim had been admitted by the RP, which was clearly indicated in the Resolution Plan, the said amount should have been disbursed to the Appellant prior to the claim of the other claimants, including the sole Financial Creditor. 10. Another aspect which has been pressed into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21/- (Rupees Six Crores Twenty Nine Lakhs Eighteen Thousand and One Hundred Twenty One only). 13. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant has vehemently put forth the submissions as recorded above and has also referred to the statutory provisions before this Court. On considering the same, going through the impugned judgment dated 14.02.2022 passed by the NCLAT and the records, we are not persuaded to take a different view. 14. As regard the fair value and liquidation value of Corporate Debtor, as derived by the valuers is concerned, this Court in Duncans Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 1 SCC 633 held that the question of valuation is basically a question of facts, which does not call for any interferenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and the claims as have been made and put forth relatable to the areas of lease. 16. Beside this, as regards the other claims pertaining to the transfer fees, etc. were not to be interfered with by courts or tribunals as the same stood related to the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors for they being the best persons to determine their interests, and any such interference is non-justiciable except as provided by Section 30(2) of IBC 2016. We do not find violation of the statute or the procedure as also the norms fixed as per the decisions referred to above of this Court, the Resolution Plan as approved by the Committee of Creditors, and the same having been accepted deserves and has rightly been left untouched. Fundamentally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CC 531, and its reiteration by numerous subsequent decisions of this Court such as the Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited and Another (2022) 2 SCC 401 and in the latest decision in DBS Bank Limited Singapore v. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited and Another (2024) 3 SCC 752, we find ourselves not in a position to accept the claim of the Appellant as sought to be made and put forth in these appeals. 20. The Orders dated 05.10.2020 and 27.11.2020, as have been passed by the NCLT and approved by the NCLAT vide its impugned Judgment dated 14.02.2022, do not call for any interference in the present Appeals. The appeals being devoid of merit, stand dismissed. 21. There shall be no order as to costs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
