9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 803 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of appeal - submission of resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor - Whether the Applicant be allowed to submit a resolution plan at this stage considering the timelines specified under IBC? - HELD THAT - In the instant Application relief is sought to permit the Applicant alone to submit a resolution plan. However, when the Respondents has contented in their reply that as the net worth of the Applicant alone is below Rs. 5 crore, the Applicant does not fulfill the criteria specified by CoC as per Section 25 (2) (h), thereafter the Applicant in its rejoinder submits that she is willing to submit the Resolution plan along with her husband and the net worth of applicant along with her husband is more than Rs. 5 crore. Making such a contention much later to request to file plan and before this Adjudicating Authority without amending the Application also does not qualify the Applicant to submit a resolution plan. It is an undeniable fact that the Applicant had wasted the time of this Adjudicating Authority by withdrawing IA No. 552/2020 at such a belated stage by filing a fresh application with same issues against the same parties with an additional ground that Applicant and Respondent No. 3 Jay overseas Pvt. Ltd. be treated at par. It is noted that the Hon'ble NCLAT has nowhere directed the CoC or the Resolution Professional to consider the resolution plan of any other prospective resolution applicant other than Respondent No. 3. The CoC had approved the resolution plan of Respondent No. 3 in its 12th meeting held on 28.12.2020 and accordingly, Resolution Professional had filed an application for approval of same before this Adjudicating Authority on 03.01.2021 vide IA No. 36/2021 and thereafter this Application is filed by the Applicant on 11.01.2021. Application rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the application in view of the disposal of IA No. 552/2020. 2. Eligibility of the Applicant to submit a resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor. 3. Consideration of the Applicant's resolution plan at this stage given the timelines specified under IBC. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Application: The Tribunal examined whether the instant application is maintainable given the previous withdrawal of IA No. 552/2020. The Applicant had sought similar reliefs in IA No. 552/2020, which was dismissed as withdrawn because of developments in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and the filing of a new application (IA No. 24 of 2021). The Tribunal found that the reasons for withdrawal were valid, and thus, the issue of maintainability was answered in the affirmative. 2. Eligibility of the Applicant: The Tribunal analyzed whether the Applicant was eligible to submit a resolution plan. The Respondents argued that the Applicant's husband was related to the promoter of the Corporate Debtor, making the Applicant disqualified under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Applicant contended that the Corporate Debtor was a registered MSME, making Section 29A inapplicable. However, the Tribunal found that the document provided by the Applicant was merely an acknowledgment receipt and not a certificate of registration as an MSME. Additionally, the Applicant's net worth was below the required Rs. 5 crore. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was not eligible to submit a resolution plan. 3. Consideration of the Applicant's Resolution Plan: Even if the Applicant had been eligible, the Tribunal considered whether the resolution plan could be accepted at this stage. The Tribunal noted that the CIRP timelines had expired, and the CoC had already approved the resolution plan of Respondent No. 3 following the Hon'ble NCLAT's order. The Tribunal emphasized that entertaining new claims at a belated stage would jeopardize the CIRP and defeat the purpose of the IBC, which aims for a time-bound resolution. Therefore, the Tribunal decided that the Applicant's resolution plan could not be considered at this stage. Conclusion: The Tribunal rejected the application, concluding that the Applicant was not eligible to submit a resolution plan and that considering such a plan at this stage would undermine the CIRP's objectives. The order emphasized the importance of adhering to the timelines and procedures specified under the IBC to ensure a fair and efficient resolution process.
|
