9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 565 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyConsideration of resolution plan of the applicant being most eligible resolution applicant in the present case - seeking withdrawal of new expression of interest being illegal - seeking stay on proceedings arising out of the new Expression of Interest/Form G - HELD THAT - There is no ambiguity in the said order for which clarification is required as sought by the Committee of Creditors. It seeks to invite all the resolution applicants of the earlier round/process including the applicant in IA No.1355 of 2022. Now the cardinal question for determination in both these applications is whether Committee of Creditors can be allowed to do so in order to avoid any grievance of such resolution applicants ? Thus, when other Resolution Applicants were not included in the final list of H1 to H4 by the Committee of Creditors then it can be safely deduced that they were not in the fray of competing Resolution Applicants finally. If other Resolution Applicants of the earlier round including the applicant in IA No.1355/2022 were/are interested to compete then none stopped them to apply when fresh EOI/Form G inviting fresh resolution plans was approved by the Committee of Creditors and issued by the Resolution Professional - Although, IA No.1355/2022 deserves dismissal with heavy costs but we refrain ourselves from imposing such costs because Committee of Creditors itself has prompted to file IA No.1381/2022, wherein it sought clarification of unambiguous order dated 10.10.2022. Application dismissed.
Issues:
1. Clarification sought by Phoenix ARC Private Limited regarding an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. Application filed by Raghav Jain seeking various reliefs related to the consideration of his resolution plan. Analysis: Issue 1: Clarification sought by Phoenix ARC Private Limited The application by Phoenix ARC Private Limited sought clarification on an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, requesting the Resolution Professional and Committee of Creditors to invite all resolution applicants for negotiations to finalize the resolution plan. The applicant emphasized the importance of inviting all prospective resolution applicants to maximize the value of the corporate debtor's assets. The applicant contended that the involvement of all resolution applicants from previous rounds would be beneficial and in line with the objective of the Adjudicating Authority's order. The applicant sought clarification to allow the Resolution Professional and Committee of Creditors to invite all prospective resolution applicants for the negotiation process. Issue 2: Application by Raghav Jain Raghav Jain filed an application under Section 60(5) of the Code, seeking various reliefs. He requested the Resolution Professional to consider his resolution plan as the most eligible, withdraw an allegedly illegal expression of interest, and stay proceedings arising from the new expression of interest. Jain claimed that his resolution plan met the requirements of the Code but was not considered by the Resolution Professional and Committee of Creditors. He accused the Resolution Professional of delaying the process for personal gain and alleged bias towards certain stakeholders. Jain asserted that he was the most eligible resolution applicant and was willing to revise his plan for better consideration. The application highlighted discrepancies in the Resolution Professional's actions and requested a fair evaluation of his resolution plan. In the judgment, the Adjudicating Authority dismissed both applications, emphasizing that there was no ambiguity in the previous order. It was clarified that the Committee of Creditors could not invite all resolution applicants from previous rounds for negotiations, as the final list had already been determined. The Authority noted that the delay in asserting rights by the applicant in the second application was detrimental to his claim. Both applications were dismissed, and the Committee of Creditors was directed to complete the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process within the specified timeframe.
|
