9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Insolvency & Bankruptcy X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Apartment, Khattar Gully, CTS No. 2267 to 2270, Girgaon, Mumbai-400 004 ('Girgaon Property'), which was given as a source of fund for the resolution plan. 4. In terms of the subject resolution plan, the resolution value was Rs. 77,98,24,619/-. For demonstrating their capacity to raise the funds for the resolution plan, the Appellants had provided certain Source of Funds. Under the Source of Funds, the Appellants had provided five immovable properties owned by the Appellants as a source for Rs. 20 crores. Out of these 5 properties, the Girgaon property, owned by Appellant No. 3/Parag Malde, was only one property, having a distress valuation of only Rs. 90 lacs, viz. 1.5% of the resolution value. 5. Admittedly, Appellant No. 3/Parag Malde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent No. 2 Bank. 7. The CoC had approved the Appellants' Resolution Plan with an overwhelming majority of 98.15% voting which ended on 07.11.2020.. Accordingly, the CoC directed Respondent No. 3 (RP) to file an application under Section 30(6) of the IB Code for approval of such plan before the Ld. NCLT. On 07.11.2020 the Respondent No. 3/RP filed an application, viz. IA No. 68/2021 before the Ld. NCLT, Mumbai under Section 30(6) of the IB Code for approval of the Appellants' plan. 8. On 18.10.2023, 13th CoC Meeting dated 18.10.2023 was conveyed by the Respondent No. 3/RP at the instance of the Respondent No. 2/SBI to discuss the issue relating to the Girgaon property. In this meeting the Appellants had clarified they were not aware abou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 19.12.2023 had directed a "formal application" to be filed to bring on record the withdrawal of consent by all the three banks, i.e., Respondent No. 2/SBI, Union Bank of India and Bank of India. However, no such application was filed by Union Bank of India and Bank of India. Furthermore, no notice was issued to the Appellants (who were never parties before the Ld. NCLT) to explain one-sided allegations of fraud made by the Respondent No. 2/SBI. On 9.01.2024 merely on a statement made by Respondent No. 2/SBI, the Ld. NCLT had passed the Impugned Order dated 9.01.2024, not only rejecting the Appellants' resolution plan, but also directed liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. 12. Heard. 13. Apparently, the decision of Respondent No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... twhile vendor(s) of the flat apparently purchased legally by Appellant No. 3. 15. We find the Impugned Order is a non-speaking order and even against principles of natural justice, as the aggrieved party, viz the Resolution Applicants, whose plan was rejected on account of an alleged fraud, was never given an opportunity to explain its position. Further the impugned order does not give any reason for rejecting the Appellants' resolution plan, once duly approved by the Committee of Creditors with an overwhelming majority of 98.15%. 16. The Ld. NCLT rather had merely accepted a statement of Respondent No. 2/SBI to permit withdrawal of consent. It ignored its earlier Order dated 19.12.2023, whereby it had directed Respondent No. 2 to file a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
