9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 495 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of dispute or not - HELD THAT - After the corporate insolvency resolution process was initiated on 25th March, 2018 and number of claims were filed by different financial creditors and the operational creditors , the claims amounting to ₹ 3000 crores. In view of the said position, the Appellant Vishal Vijay Kalantri on behalf of the Promoter sought time to settle the claim under Section 12A. The learned counsel for the Appellant wanted to highlight the merit to suggest that there is a pre-existence of dispute . However, as more than one and a half year has passed and as the matter remains pending since long because of the Appellant Vishal Vijay Kalantri , the Promoter would have settled the matter with the creditors and also sought time, we are not inclined to determine the initial issue whether there was a pre-existing dispute or not. Even if, the proceedings is quashed on the pre-existing dispute , as admittedly there is a default of payment and it will regenerate other proceedings, which is not desirable. Admittedly, the Committee of Creditors now approved the plan as submitted by the APSEZL with 99.68% voting share and approved on 19th September, 2019. The impugned order dated 25th March, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench is upheld and the appeals preferred by Vishal Vijay Kalantri is dismissed and it is declared that both the appeals preferred by APSEZL as infructuous - The matter stands remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to pass appropriate order under Section 31 of the I B Code in accordance with law.
Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Dighi Port Limited. 2. Existence of dispute and settlement negotiations. 3. Approval and rejection of resolution plans by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). 4. Submission and rejection of the proposal under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code). 5. Compliance with Section 30(2) of the I&B Code and Regulation 38 of the CIRP Regulations. 6. Final approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority. Detailed Analysis: 1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP): DBM Geotechnics and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. filed an application under Section 9 of the I&B Code for initiating CIRP against Dighi Port Limited (Corporate Debtor). The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application on 25th March 2018. 2. Existence of Dispute and Settlement Negotiations: Vishal Vijay Kalantri, a Director and Shareholder of the Corporate Debtor, challenged the initiation of CIRP on the grounds of an 'existence of dispute'. The appeal was adjourned multiple times to allow for settlement negotiations between the parties. However, the matter was not settled, and the CIRP continued. 3. Approval and Rejection of Resolution Plans by the Committee of Creditors (CoC): The resolution plan by Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited (APSEZL) was initially rejected by 99.38% of the CoC. Subsequently, the resolution plan by Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) was approved by 99.38% of the CoC. However, JNPT sought additional time to evaluate the impact of modifications directed in their resolution plan. The CoC later decided to call for revised/improved/revalidated resolution plans from APSEZL, JNPT, and Veritas Consortium. 4. Submission and Rejection of Proposal under Section 12A of the I&B Code: Vishal Vijay Kalantri submitted a proposal under Section 12A of the I&B Code, which was rejected by the CoC. The CoC decided to vote on the withdrawal of the CIRP under Section 12A, but the proposal was rejected by 99.68% of the CoC members. 5. Compliance with Section 30(2) of the I&B Code and Regulation 38 of the CIRP Regulations: The resolution plan submitted by APSEZL was found to be in compliance with Section 30(2) of the I&B Code and Regulation 38 of the CIRP Regulations. The CoC approved the resolution plan submitted by APSEZL with 99.68% votes. 6. Final Approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, reserved judgment on the application filed by the Resolution Professional seeking approval of the resolution plan of APSEZL. The Appellate Tribunal noted that it cannot interfere with the commercial wisdom of the CoC and dismissed the appeals preferred by Vishal Vijay Kalantri and declared the appeals by APSEZL as infructuous. The matter was remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to pass an appropriate order under Section 31 of the I&B Code. Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals and remitted the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for passing an order under Section 31 of the I&B Code. The resolution plan submitted by APSEZL was subsequently approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 5th March 2020.
|
