2022 (10) TMI 745 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking Approval of the Resolution Plan - submission of the Counsel for the Appellant is that although the Adjudicating Authority has excluded 58 days period but had not granted any specific permission for issuance of Form-G - HELD THAT - After granting exclusion of 58 days, the Adjudicating Authority has directed the Resolution Professional to complete the process of CIRP within time and file report. When direction was issued by the Adjudicating Authority to Resolution Professional to complete the process, the process includes issuance of Form-G and mere fact that expressly Form-G was not mentioned is inconsequential, we do not find any substance in the submission of the Counsel for the Appellant. Within the time when the amount was not deposited, at this stage, the Appellant cannot be permitted to deposit the amount when another plan has been approved. Further submission that plan which has been approved has value of less than Rs. 2 Crores cannot be a ground to interfere with the approval of the Resolution Plan. Further, the Resolution Applicant whose plan has been approved was already H-2 in the earlier process in which Appellant was H-1. No ground has been made out to interfere with the impugned order - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of objection and approval of Resolution Plan
- Request for extension of time to furnish Bank Guarantee
- Exclusion of time and issuance of Form-G
- Approval of Resolution Plan with less value
- Grounds for interference with the impugned order

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of the objection and the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant, a Successful Resolution Applicant, requested an extension of 10 days to furnish the Bank Guarantee, which was not accepted. The Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting noted the inability of the Appellant to deposit the required amount, leading to an adjournment for legal advice. The CoC later decided to conduct e-voting for fresh publication of Form-G.

2. The Adjudicating Authority excluded 58 days from the total period of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) due to plans under consideration by the CoC. Although the specific permission for the issuance of Form-G was not mentioned in the order, the Resolution Professional was directed to complete the CIRP process within the given time frame. The Appellant's submission of being ready to deposit the amount post-approval of another plan was not considered valid.

3. The Appellant's argument that the approved Resolution Plan had less value than their proposed amount was rejected as insufficient grounds for interference. Additionally, the Resolution Applicant whose plan was approved ranked higher in the previous process compared to the Appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal found no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the approval of the Resolution Plan, emphasizing that the Appellant's inability to deposit the amount during the relevant period did not warrant interference post-approval. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the CIRP timeline and the CoC's authority in approving Resolution Plans.