2020 (9) TMI 1032 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Approval of Resolution Plan - Section 30 of IBC - HELD THAT - The arguments/opinion of the Learned counsel of the RP at the Bench's questions about irregularities observed in the Compliance Certificate should not matter much as long as the Members of the Bench are honest and sincere to the pie. Moreover, the Learned Lawyer has not sought for change of Bench in this matter. It may not be proper, in my opinion, to fall prey to the improper view/opinion/arguments of the Learned lawyer. Hence, this Adjudicating Authority may take a lenient view at the expression of the learned lawyer on the clarifications sought by this Adjudicating Authority in the interest of Justice and achievement of the objectives of the IBC.

Summary

Issues: Recusal of Bench due to personal prejudice, Compliance Certificate discrepancies in Resolution Plan approval

Recusal of Bench due to Personal Prejudice:
The judgment involves a recusal of the Bench from the case due to a perceived personal prejudice against the Resolution Professional (RP). During the arguments, it was noted that one of the Bench members harbored personal prejudice towards the RP, leading to a decision to maintain transparency and fairness by recusing from the case. The matter was directed to be placed before a Co-ordinate Bench or an Appropriate Bench for further proceedings.

Compliance Certificate Discrepancies in Resolution Plan Approval:
The judgment delves into the discrepancies found in the Compliance Certificate submitted by the RP seeking approval of the Resolution Plan. The RP had filled the Compliance Certificate form 'H' with 'NA' instead of 'Yes' or 'No' in crucial columns related to determining if the corporate debtor was involved in specific transactions as per regulations. When questioned about these discrepancies, the RP's counsel justified the entries but agreed to file an affidavit for clarification. The Adjudicating Authority highlighted the importance of timely resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and expressed concerns over the delay in the case. Despite the RP's counsel's stance, the Authority emphasized the need for accurate information in the Compliance Certificate for the approval of the Resolution Plan. The judgment also discussed the differing opinions within the Bench regarding recusal, with one Member advocating for recusal while the other Member believed in continuing with the case for timely disposal without further delay.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the critical issues of recusal due to personal prejudice and discrepancies in the Compliance Certificate affecting the approval of the Resolution Plan. It underscores the importance of transparency, fairness, and adherence to regulatory requirements in insolvency proceedings. The decision to refer the matter to the Hon'ble President, NCLT, Delhi for the appointment of another Judicial Member reflects the commitment to ensuring a just and efficient resolution process without undue delays.