9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 1248 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyPrinciples of natural justice - Resolution Plan already approved during the pendency of this Application - Applicant/Appellant was not given opportunity to meet the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, who is the Competent Authority for considering the proposal of the Applicant/Appellant who is an MSME - HELD THAT - It is open for the Applicant/Appellant to make such application, as permissible in law, before the Adjudicating Authority for consideration of this grievance, if any. Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant submits that he is making offer higher than the Successful Resolution Applicant, whose plan has been approved. It is open for the Applicant to place his plea, as admissible in law, before the Adjudicating Authority. Thus, no case has been made out to make further order in I.A. No. 259 of 2023. Any Application filed by the Applicant shall be considered in accordance with law by the Adjudicating Authority.
Issues:
1. Interlocutory Application regarding the opportunity to meet the Chairman-cum-Managing Director. 2. Approval of Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). 3. Higher offer made by the Applicant compared to the Successful Resolution Applicant. 4. Contempt Case closure. Interlocutory Application regarding opportunity to meet the Chairman-cum-Managing Director: The Interlocutory Application was filed by the Appellant concerning a disposed Company Appeal. The Appellant claimed they were not given the opportunity to meet the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, who is the Competent Authority for considering the proposal. The Tribunal had made necessary clarifications in a previous order. The Bank's Counsel stated that all steps were taken by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) as per the Tribunal's orders. The Applicant's Counsel mentioned efforts made post a specific date to meet the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, but without success. The Tribunal suggested the Applicant could approach the Adjudicating Authority with any grievances, and the Applicant could present their plea before the Authority. Approval of Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC): The CoC had already approved the Resolution Plan during the pendency of the Application. The Applicant's Counsel highlighted that the Applicant was offering a higher amount than the Successful Resolution Applicant. The Tribunal noted that no case was made out to issue further orders on the Application, emphasizing that any future Application by the Applicant would be considered by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with the law. Higher offer made by the Applicant compared to the Successful Resolution Applicant: The Applicant expressed their intention to offer a higher amount than the Successful Resolution Applicant whose plan had been approved by the CoC. The Tribunal acknowledged this but reiterated that any further action or plea by the Applicant should be presented before the Adjudicating Authority for proper consideration. Contempt Case closure: In the Contempt Case, the Applicant's Counsel stated they did not wish to pursue the application, leading to the closure of the Contempt Application by the Tribunal. This judgment addressed various aspects, including the opportunity to meet the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, the higher offer made by the Applicant, and the closure of the Contempt Case. The Tribunal emphasized the proper legal procedures and the role of the Adjudicating Authority in addressing any grievances or future applications effectively.
|
