2022 (3) TMI 1112 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Approval of the Resolution Plan - HELD THAT - The present is the case where Order of the Adjudicating Authority approving the Resolution Plan is under challenge. In so far as the claim of the Appellant regarding non-consideration of his plan is concerned, suffice it to say that the Appellant was himself present in the fourth Meeting of the CoC. The grievance of the Appellant that his plan was never considered does not appear to be correct. No formal resolution plan was submitted by the Appellant although the COC has permitted the Appellant to submit his plan provided he is eligible as per the eligibility criteria approved by the CoC. Thus, grievance of the Appellant that his offer was never considered has no merit. Appellant can not make any complaint on the aforesaid account. From the facts, which has been brought on record it does appear that the Resolution Professional after the 2nd CoC meeting has visited the Hospital and obtained the permission of CMO and met Dr. Mall who was at that point of time running the hospital. The present is the case of running of a hospital, the Resolution Professional is not supposed to take physical possession of the hospital for running the hospital in the facts of the present case. The visiting of the Resolution Professional and all steps taken by the RP has duly been noted and considered by the CoC in 04th Meeting and subsequent meeting which indicate that what was expected by the RP was duly performed. No grounds have been made out to interfere with the Impugned Order in exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Challenge against the Order approving the Resolution Plan.
2. Allegation of non-consideration of the Appellant's plan.
3. Failure of the Resolution Professional to take possession of the Hospital.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Appellant challenged the Order approving the Resolution Plan, claiming that as an ex-director, he was not allowed to submit a plan, and the Resolution Professional did not fulfill duties under Section 25 of the Code. The Resolution Professional, however, refuted these claims, stating that the Hospital was closed before CIRP initiation due to Covid-19, and the Appellant's proposal was considered by the CoC but not submitted. The CoC supported the Resolution Plan's compliance with the Code, rejecting the Appellant's claim with 100% voting share. The Tribunal noted the submissions and records, finding no error in the Adjudicating Authority's Order approving the Resolution Plan, emphasizing the CoC's commercial wisdom in decision-making.

2. Regarding the non-consideration of the Appellant's plan, the Tribunal referred to the 4th CoC Meeting where the Appellant's proposal was discussed, and the CoC recommended him to file a Resolution Plan if eligible under Section 29A of the Code. The Appellant did not submit a formal plan despite being permitted by the CoC, leading to the Tribunal dismissing the grievance that his offer was not considered. The Tribunal highlighted that the Appellant's claim lacked merit as the CoC had given him the opportunity to submit a plan but he failed to do so, thus rejecting any complaint on this ground.

3. The Appellant argued that the Resolution Professional failed to take possession of the Hospital, a statutory duty under the Code. The Tribunal found that the Resolution Professional visited the Hospital, obtained necessary permissions, and took steps as required, which were duly noted and considered by the CoC in subsequent meetings. The Tribunal clarified that in the case of running a hospital, physical possession by the Resolution Professional was not necessary. The CoC's decision-making process, approval of the Resolution Plan, and compliance with statutory requirements were deemed satisfactory by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that no grounds were presented to interfere with the Order approving the Resolution Plan, respecting the CoC's commercial wisdom in the matter.