2020 (3) TMI 1365 - AT - Companies Law

Validity of approved Resolution Plan - HELD THAT - The Resolution Plan has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench by impugned order dated 26th November, 2019. The free certified copy of the impugned order having been issued on 21st February, 2020, the Appeal is within time - However, no prima-facie case seems to have been made out by the Appellant to suggest violation of any of the grounds shown in Clause (3) of Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Merely because Enforcement Directorate had taken steps against the erstwhile Promoters of the Corporate Debtor , cannot be a ground for interference against the order of approval of Resolution Plan - Post the case for admission (fresh case) on 26th March, 2020.

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of the appeal
2. Alleged violation of grounds under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
3. Enforcement Directorate's actions against the erstwhile Promoters of the Corporate Debtor

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the timeliness of the appeal, noting that the Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 26th November, 2019, with the certified copy issued on 21st February, 2020. The Appellate Tribunal holds that the appeal is within time based on this timeline.

2. The Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case suggesting a violation of any grounds specified in Clause (3) of Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The judgment emphasizes that mere actions by the Enforcement Directorate against the former Promoters of the Corporate Debtor do not constitute sufficient grounds to interfere with the approval of the Resolution Plan. The Appellant is granted time to present arguments on how the impugned order is legally flawed.

3. The judgment allows the Respondents to file a reply affidavit before the next hearing date. The case is scheduled for admission as a fresh case on 26th March, 2020. It is clarified that no interim stay order has been issued in the absence of any stay application.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal, including the timeliness of the appeal, the lack of a prima facie case for violation of specified grounds under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and the actions of the Enforcement Directorate against the former Promoters of the Corporate Debtor.