2022 (1) TMI 769 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking direction to Resolution Professional of Afcan Impex Private Limited and member of CoC to allow submission of the Resolution Plan by the applicant in the matter of Afcan Impex Private Limited - Section 60(5) read with Section 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT - The respondent No. 1 published Form-G on 09.06.2021 inviting expression of interest for which the last date was 07.07.2021 and the last date for submission of the resolution plan was 16.08.2021 However, the applicant expressed its willingness to submit the resolution plan on 30.09.2021 which is much beyond the last date for submission of the resolution plan - It is further noted that the CoC approved the resolution plan with 100% voting on 01.10.2021 and the application before this Adjudicating Authority for approval of the resolution plan as approved by the CoC is pending. The object of IBC is maximization of the value of Corporate Debtor in a time bound manner and commercial wisdom of CoC is the central point under the IB Code - We are not inclined to interfere in the matter where the CoC has already passed the resolution plan and moreover the extension of 90 days granted vide order dated 31.08.2021 expired on 14.11.2021. Application rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Application under Section 60(5) read with Section 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for direction to allow submission of Resolution Plan.

Analysis:
1. The applicant filed an application seeking direction to submit a Resolution Plan for a corporate debtor under CIRP. The corporate debtor was admitted into CIRP, and the IRP invited EOI from prospective resolution applicants. The CIRP period was extended, and the applicant expressed willingness to submit the plan after the deadline.

2. The applicant proposed to acquire the corporate debtor based on publicly available information, offering a bid amount. The applicant committed to submitting the plan and required financial instruments if the order was passed to consider their plan. The CoC was considering multiple plans but had not approved any.

3. The respondent stated that EOI submission after the specified time would be rejected as per CIRP Regulations. The CoC approved a resolution plan with 100% voting, and the respondent filed for approval before the Adjudicating Authority. The respondent provided details of compliance with regulations.

4. The Tribunal noted the timeline of events, emphasizing the importance of timely submissions under CIRP Regulations. The CoC's commercial wisdom in approving a plan was highlighted, and the Tribunal declined to interfere, considering the maximization of the corporate debtor's value under the IBC. The extension granted had also expired.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal disposed of the application, rejecting it without imposing any costs. The decision was based on upholding the CoC's decision-making authority and adherence to the prescribed timelines under the IBC and CIRP Regulations.