Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (11) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 673 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyPermission for withdrawal of Resolution Plan post CoC's approval - HELD THAT - It is very interesting to note that the factors which Adjudicating Authority is now capable to consider for limited judicial view are not mentioned in Section 30(2). This is a significant departure in judicial approach whereas earlier it was generally held that the role of NCLT was limited to see that Resolution Plan confirms to the requirements of Section 30(2) on the assumption that both RP and CoC had already seen aspects mentioned therein and merits of the Commercial wisdom of CoC could not be interfered with The CoC must take into consideration interest of all stakeholders in the best possible manner and for that purpose, it should follow the principle of fair play and reasonableness while supervising CIRP and approving the Resolution Plan. Consequently, the process adopted by Resolution Professional and CoC should not only be in accordance with the provisions of IBC, 2016 but should also not be arbitrary or unreasonable. The above proposition has also been statutorily recognized by way of amendment of Regulation 39(3) of CIRP Regulations. It is also noteworthy provision of simultaneous voting on Resolution Plan has been brought in this regulation which also goes to show the legislative intent as regard to transparent process be followed by RP/CoC. There appears to be a certainty in the mind of RP/CoC that irrespective of delays to any extent such application is not required as Resolution Applicant cannot withdraw itself from such process. The Resolution Applicant is granted permission to withdraw its Resolution Plan - Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Withdrawal of Resolution Plan post CoC's approval. 2. Timeliness and speed in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) process. 3. Jurisdiction and powers of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 60(5)(c) of IBC. 4. Applicability of Indian Contract Act, 1872 to the process document and Resolution Plan. 5. Feasibility and viability of the Resolution Plan. 6. Impact of delays on the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). 7. Role and powers of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). Detailed Analysis: 1. Withdrawal of Resolution Plan Post CoC's Approval: The Resolution Applicants sought to withdraw their Resolution Plan after CoC's approval due to significant delays in the approval process by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal analyzed whether such withdrawal was permissible under the IBC and found no express or implied prohibition against it. The Tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of IBC to allow the withdrawal of the Resolution Plan in the interests of substantial justice. 2. Timeliness and Speed in the IBC Process: The Tribunal emphasized that speed and timeliness are cornerstones of the IBC. The maximum period for the CIRP, including time taken in legal proceedings, is 330 days. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's observations in the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. vs. Satish Kumar Gupta, which highlighted the importance of adhering to timelines to avoid value destruction and achieve the objectives of the IBC. 3. Jurisdiction and Powers of NCLT under Section 60(5)(c) of IBC: The Tribunal asserted its jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) to entertain and dispose of any question of law or fact arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings. It concluded that it had the authority to permit the withdrawal of the Resolution Plan, as there was no express prohibition in the IBC against such withdrawal. 4. Applicability of Indian Contract Act, 1872: The Tribunal applied the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, to the process document and the Resolution Plan. It emphasized that the Resolution Applicant and CoC/RP were both promisor and promisee, and the contract consisted of reciprocal promises. The Tribunal held that the delay in approval of the Resolution Plan made the contract voidable at the option of the Resolution Applicant under Sections 54 and 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 5. Feasibility and Viability of the Resolution Plan: The Tribunal examined whether the Resolution Plan met the requirements of Section 30(2)(e) of IBC, which mandates that the plan should not contravene any provisions of law. It found that the Resolution Plan lacked a specified term of validity, which contravened Regulation 38(2) of CIRP Regulations. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Resolution Plan was liable to be rejected for non-compliance with IBC provisions. 6. Impact of Delays on CIRP: The Tribunal acknowledged that delays in the approval process had significant adverse impacts on the CIRP, including the depletion of the Corporate Debtor's asset value and the uncertainty of business prospects. It noted that the pandemic situation further exacerbated these issues, making the implementation of the Resolution Plan unviable. 7. Role and Powers of CoC: The Tribunal highlighted the evolving role and powers of the CoC, emphasizing that CoC must consider the interests of all stakeholders, not just financial creditors. It criticized the arbitrary and unreasonable approach of CoC in formulating the process document and stressed the need for transparency and accountability in the CIRP process. Conclusion: The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the Resolution Plan, directed the return of the performance security to the Resolution Applicant, and instructed the Resolution Professional to modify the process document to comply with IBC provisions. It also set a timeline for seeking new Resolution Plans and completing the CIRP, failing which the Corporate Debtor would be subject to liquidation.
|