2023 (12) TMI 128 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Service of notice - It is the main case of the Appellant that failure to provide an accurate Notice to the 11th CoC Meeting dated 14/12/2022 and the failure to provide Notice to e-voting of the Resolution Plan is in contravention of Regulations 21, 24 and 26 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process of Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 - HELD THAT - The Appellant herein cannot be said to be prejudiced or his legal right having been injured on account of the Appellant not attending the 11th CoC Meeting at 3.00 p.m. Be that as it may, there are force in the contention of the Learned Counsels for the Respondents that the change in the timing was also intimated and it was the Appellant who did not choose to join the link. The voting sheet enclosed with the material on record establishes that Regulation 26 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process of Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 was not violated. Section 25 (2) and Regulation 21 have been complied with by the Respondents as the contents of the Notice for the Meeting and presenting all Resolution Plans at the Meetings of the CoC was duly done by the RP. Therefore, there was no violation of any Regulation of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process of Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 to warrant interference in the approval of the Resolution Plan. Applicability of the ratio in the matter of Vijayakumar Jain Vs. Standard Chartered Bank 2019 (2) TMI 97 - SUPREME COURT is applicable to the facts of this case - HELD THAT - It is held in Vijaykumar Jain that the Law must ensure that access to this information is made available to all Creditors to the Enterprise, directly or through the RP. In the attendant case, the Appellant was well aware of the Resolution Plan and was part of all the discussions with respect to the evaluation matrix. It is significant to mention that the Appellant had not made any request seeking for the Copy of the Resolution Plan, which is not the case in the facts of the matter of Vijaykumar Jain - the ratio of Vijaykumar Jain cannot be made squarely applicable to the facts of the attendant case on hand. There is no prejudice or injury to any legal right caused to the Appellant herein and there are no illegality or infirmity in the Common Impugned Order dated 05/07/2023, passed by the Adjudicating Authority and hence, these Appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Notice was issued to the Appellant regarding the 11th CoC Meeting scheduled to be held on 14/12/2022 and the change of timing from 11.30 a.m. to 3.00 p.m.
2. Whether there is any prejudice caused to the Appellant on account of not attending the 11th CoC Meeting at 3.00 p.m. and whether there was any violation of Regulations of the IBBI (Insolvency Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
3. Whether the ratio in the Judgment of 'Vijayakumar Jain Vs. Standard Chartered Bank' reported in [(2019) 20 SCC 455] is applicable to the facts of this case.

Summary:

Issue 1: Notice for the 11th CoC Meeting
The Tribunal found that the Notice for the 11th CoC Meeting scheduled on 14/12/2022 at 11.30 a.m. was sent via email to the Appellant. Despite the Appellant's claim that the change in timing was not informed, a WhatsApp conversation with the RP indicated the Appellant was aware of the time change. The minutes of the 11th CoC Meeting were reconfirmed in the 12th CoC Meeting, which the Appellant attended.

Issue 2: Prejudice and Violation of Regulations
The Tribunal examined whether any prejudice was caused to the Appellant for not attending the 11th CoC Meeting at 3.00 p.m. It was noted that the Appellant was aware of the CoC's approval of the Resolution Plan and the CIRP period extension. The RP had complied with Section 25(2) and Regulation 21 of the IBBI Regulations, ensuring that all Resolution Plans were presented at the CoC Meetings. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant was not prejudiced or legally injured by not attending the 11th CoC Meeting and found no violation of the IBBI Regulations.

Issue 3: Applicability of Vijayakumar Jain Judgment
The Tribunal addressed whether the ratio in 'Vijayakumar Jain Vs. Standard Chartered Bank' applied to this case. In 'Vijayakumar Jain,' the Appellant was denied participation in meetings and sought a direction to participate and access Resolution Plans. In the current case, the Appellant attended all CoC Meetings except the 11th, was aware of the evaluation matrix, and did not request a copy of the Resolution Plan. The Tribunal found that the facts of 'Vijayakumar Jain' did not squarely apply to the current case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that no prejudice or injury to any legal right was caused to the Appellant. The Common Impugned Order dated 05/07/2023 was upheld, and the Appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs. All connected pending interlocutory applications were closed.