9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1711 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyValidity of dealings with MCGM CoC RP the Resolution Applicants - direction to Respondent No. 1 to 4 to place the entire correspondence discussions minutes of meeting documents exchanged between MCGM on one hand and COC RP Resolution Applicants including Respondent No. 4 4(a) on the other before this Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT - On 29.04.2019 MCGM has filed a memo expressing No objection to the proposed Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant provided the Conditions stipulated in para 11 of the Written Submissions of MCGM are incorporated in the Resolution Plan although at this juncture the MCGM took a contradictory stand the same has no relevance in the present Application - The Comments/suggestions/objections of the said Nominee Directors were also duly considered by the CoC and eventually the proposed Resolution Plan dated 09.09.2018 was reaffirmed by the CoC. It is appropriate to bear in mind the Law laid down by Hon ble NCLAT that once an Application for Approval of a Resolution Plan is filed before the Adjudicating Authority Applications that do not allege that the Resolution plan approved by the CoC contravenes section 30 of IBC are not maintainable - In the present case on hand except a bald allegation that Section 30(2)(e) of IBC 2016 has not been followed No material evidence is placed before this Adjudicating Authority to substantiate such claim. This Adjudicating Authority is of the view that the Applicant has no locus standi to seek such prayers and even otherwise there are no merits in the Instant Application which warrant the indulgence of this Adjudicating Authority for granting the reliefs prayed therein - Application dismissed.
Issues:
1. Shareholder's application against Resolution Professional under IBC. 2. Alleged concealment of revised Resolution Plan. 3. Preferential treatment to MCGM. 4. Consideration of suspended Board of Directors' comments on Resolution Plan. 5. Challenge to Resolution Plan approval. 6. Locus standi of Applicant in seeking reliefs. Analysis: 1. The shareholder, holding 49.9% equity share capital, filed an application against the Resolution Professional under IBC seeking disclosure of correspondence and documents related to a revised Resolution Plan dated 09.10.2018 allegedly not presented to the Adjudicating Authority. The application highlighted the lack of transparency in the Resolution Plan approval process. 2. The application raised concerns about preferential treatment given to MCGM, an operational creditor, during CoC meetings and sharing of the Resolution Plan with MCGM, which was not required by the Code. It argued that such treatment violated the statutory obligations under the Code and emphasized the need for equal treatment of creditors in the resolution process. 3. The Resolution Professional shared the Resolution Plan with suspended Board of Directors, considering their comments and objections, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court. The CoC reaffirmed its approval of the Resolution Plan after due consideration of the comments raised. The Adjudicating Authority noted that objections to the Resolution Plan were found unsustainable given the involvement of all stakeholders in the process. 4. The Adjudicating Authority emphasized the principle that once a Resolution Plan is approved by the CoC and placed before the Authority, challenges can be made before the Appellate Authority or the Supreme Court if legal issues arise. The Applicant's lack of locus standi to seek certain reliefs was highlighted, and the application was disposed of based on the merits presented. 5. The judgment concluded that the Applicant's prayers regarding MCGM's claim and connected documents were deemed irrelevant as vital information had been shared with the Applicant through its nominee directors. The involvement of all stakeholders in the resolution process, including the nominee directors, was considered in reaffirming the Resolution Plan's approval by the CoC. The Adjudicating Authority found no merit in the Applicant's claims, leading to the disposal of the application.
|
