2020 (4) TMI 898 - Tri - Companies Law

Approval of Resolution Plan - Validity of decision of the RP for not short listing its Resolution Plan despite its plan is in compliance with Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - validity of decision of RP for short listing and approving the CarVal s Resolution Plan as successful Resolution Plan - whether the economic interest of this Applicant is getting prejudiced because his plan has not been admitted? - HELD THAT - The issue decided in the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA VERSUS UTTAM GALAV METALLICS LIMITED, INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES IV PTE. LTD. AND ORS. VERSUS MR. RAJIV CHAKRABORTY AND ORS., NOBLE RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL PTE LIMITED VERSUS MR. RAJIV CHAKRABORTY, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF UTTAM GALVA METALLICS LIMITED ORS. 2020 (3) TMI 1390 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI where it was held that Once plan is shortlisted, if at all any remedy is assumed to be present, it is only with regard to the procedure, as to the procedure is concerned, in Regulation 39 of the CIRP Regulations it has been categorically mentioned that the Committee of Creditors shall evaluate the resolution plan received under Regulation 39 strictly as per the evaluation matrix to identify the best resolution plan, when evaluation matrix figures are there, that being the special subject, as long as there is no objection from any of the Committee of Creditors over the process of evaluation, if the evaluation matrix discloses marks identifying the best plan, the CoC will have to opt for the best plan provided it is viable and feasible. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Failure to pass orders in a Company Petition
- Application of orders passed by different members of the NCLT Bench
- Adoption of a previous order by the present Bench

Issue 1: Failure to pass orders in a Company Petition
The judgment addresses the oversight of not passing orders in a Company Petition. The Counsel did not notify the Bench about this aspect during oral submissions. It was highlighted that the orders passed by different members in related matters were equally applicable to the present case. The Bench acknowledged the error and rectified it by adopting the previous order passed on 20.03.2020 in a related case.

Issue 2: Application of orders passed by different members of the NCLT Bench
The judgment discusses how the orders passed by the Judicial Member and the Technical Member in separate matters were deemed applicable to the present case. The Bench recognized the decisions made by both members and concluded that the order passed on 20.03.2020 in a different case was equally relevant to the issues in the current Company Petition.

Issue 3: Adoption of a previous order by the present Bench
The judgment concludes with the present Bench agreeing with the decision of the Technical Member from the NCLT Mumbai Bench. Consequently, the Bench adopted the order dated 20.03.2020 passed in a specific case to the current matter. This adoption of the previous order served to ensure consistency and alignment with the decisions made by the Technical Member in the related case.