9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 930 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyApproval of Resolution Plan - grievance of the Petitioner / Appellant / Resolution Applicant is that the Adjudicating Authority was misled by the Resolution Professional and the Resolution Plan, submitted by the Resolution Applicant was not placed before the Committee of Creditors or the Tribunal - HELD THAT - On going through, the contents of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee of Creditors (M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Limited dated 18.02.2020), is of the considered view that the Resolution Plan furnished by the Petitioner / Appellant / Resolution Applicant was given necessary consideration during numerous Committee of Creditors Meetings and that, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 gave adequate opportunity to the Petitioner / Appellant / Resolution Applicant, to present its Proposal to the Committee and after elaborate negotiations, the Committee had considered the Resolution Plan, submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant Viz. Starteck Finance Limited, as a viable one. In the teeth of Lack of Bonafide, on the part of the Petitioner / Appellant, the leave sought in Company appeal, in preferring the instant Appeal sans merits - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Party not made party to initial application in National Company Law Tribunal. 2. Allegations of misleading information by Resolution Professional. 3. Failure to communicate bid rejection or approval. 4. Declaration of H1 Resolution Applicant without cogent reason. 5. Judicial precedent on revival of interlocutory orders. 6. Challenge to Resolution Plan approval process. 7. Allegations of material misrepresentation and suppression of facts. 8. Locus standi of Resolution Applicant to challenge Resolution Plan. 9. Seeking leave to challenge Resolution Plan implementation. 10. Consideration of Resolution Plan by Committee of Creditors. 11. Lack of bonafide in seeking leave to challenge Resolution Plan. Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with a case where the Petitioner/Appellant/Resolution Applicant was not made a party to an initial application in the National Company Law Tribunal, leading to the inability to represent in subsequent proceedings. 2. Allegations were made against the Resolution Professional for misleading the Adjudicating Authority and not presenting the Resolution Plan to the Committee of Creditors or the Tribunal, leading to grievances by the Petitioner/Appellant/Resolution Applicant. 3. The Petitioner/Appellant/Resolution Applicant raised concerns about not being informed about the status of their bid and not having their Revised Plan considered, indicating a lack of communication from the Respondents. 4. The declaration of the H1 Resolution Applicant without providing a clear reason for not considering the Resolution Plan submitted by another party raised questions of procedural fairness. 5. Reference was made to a judicial precedent regarding the revival of interlocutory orders in the context of challenging the dismissal of a suit. 6. The judgment analyzed the challenge to the Resolution Plan approval process, highlighting the importance of following due process and ensuring all parties are given a fair opportunity. 7. Allegations of material misrepresentation and suppression of facts were raised against the Petitioner/Appellant/Resolution Applicant, questioning the bonafide nature of their actions. 8. The issue of locus standi of the Resolution Applicant to challenge the Successful Resolution Plan was discussed, emphasizing the need for a valid legal standing to raise objections. 9. The Petitioner/Appellant/Resolution Applicant sought leave to challenge the implementation of the Resolution Plan, which was contested by the Respondents on grounds of lack of merit and bonafide intentions. 10. The judgment detailed the consideration of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors, highlighting the series of meetings and negotiations that took place before the approval of the plan by the successful Resolution Applicant. 11. Ultimately, the judgment dismissed the Petitioner's application, citing lack of bonafide intentions and rejecting the challenge to the Resolution Plan implementation, thus closing the connected pending Interlocutory Applications.
|
