2020 (3) TMI 1388 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking direction to RP to take on record and to consider the revised offer - HELD THAT - As per the material placed before this Tribunal, the resolution plan submitted by the highest bidder has already been approved by the COC on 12.02.2020 with 100% voting and also submitted to this this Tribunal for its approval. It also transpires from the written Minutes of Meeting dated 11.02.2020 of the 5 COC meeting that the petitioner insisted the COC to provide the individual score and the bid amount of all the RPAs before its presentation of plan and confronted with the COC in not providing that information which is highly uncalled for. It also transpires from record that the petitioner abstained from attending the meeting on 12.02.2020 and despite their absence, the COC applied its mind on the earlier plan submitted by the petitioner and taken conscious call. Since the resolution plan of the highest bidder has already been approved with 100% voting, the above application is not only infructuous but also liable to be rejected on account of latches and lack of bona-fides on the part of the petitioners. Application rejected.

Summary

Issues:
- Application filed by proposed unsuccessful Resolution Plan Applicants (RPAs) to direct the RP to consider a revised offer.
- Approval of resolution plan by Committee of Creditors (COC) with 100% voting.
- Petitioner's insistence on individual score and bid amount disclosure.
- Petitioner's absence during COC meeting where the resolution plan was approved.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application filed by the proposed unsuccessful Resolution Plan Applicants (RPAs) requesting the Tribunal to direct the Resolution Professional (RP) to consider a revised offer. The resolution plan submitted by the highest bidder had already been approved by the Committee of Creditors (COC) with 100% voting and was submitted for approval. The petitioner had insisted on disclosure of individual scores and bid amounts of all RPAs before presenting their plan, which was deemed unnecessary. The petitioner also abstained from attending a crucial COC meeting where the resolution plan was approved, indicating a lack of participation.

The Tribunal noted that since the resolution plan of the highest bidder had already been approved with 100% voting, the application filed by the RPAs was not only infructuous but also lacked bona fides. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of timely and active participation in the resolution process, emphasizing that the petitioner's absence during the COC meeting where the plan was approved was a significant factor in the rejection of their application. The judgment concluded by rejecting the application and disposing of the matter accordingly.