9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1279 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyApproval of the resolution plan - e-mail not considered - Challenge to issuance of EOI. - Appellant has not submitted any plan with regard to first EOI, appellant has participated in the second EOI. Non-consideration of e-mail - HELD THAT - The submission of the appellant that e-mail which was sent on 05.06.2023 has not been considered whereas documents submitted by SRA has been considered is belied from the record itself where the decision was taken to consider the plan exclusive of the submission dated 05.06.2023. Thus, there are no substance. Challenge to issuance of 2nd EOI - HELD THAT - After receipt of the plan, CoC took a decision to invite fresh EOI in pursuance of which appellant participated in the process and his plan was considered. It was open for the appellant to challenge the issuance of 2nd EOI which was never done. Further as submitted by counsel for the appellant, decision was taken by the CoC to invite fresh EOI as plan value was much below the liquidation value. The appellant cannot be allowed to challenge the issuance of 2nd EOI on this ground - there are no error in the impugned order - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting IA, Consideration of documents in CoC meeting, Submission of resolution plan, Fresh EOI process, Challenge to 2nd EOI issuance. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the rejection of IA No.5390 of 2023 by the Appellant, seeking various reliefs related to the decision of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in its 19th meeting. The Appellant, a Resolution Applicant, contested the approval of another Resolution Applicant's plan by the CoC. The Appellant's counsel argued that the CoC did not consider an email submitted on 05.06.2023 regarding the Appellant's plan, while granting time to the successful Resolution Applicant to provide details of the source of funds. The Appellant also raised concerns about the re-run of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) based on fresh Expressions of Interest (EOIs) after an initial round. The CoC decided to re-run the process due to low plan value compared to liquidation value. The Appellant challenged the decision on these grounds. During the hearing, the Respondent's counsel contended that the CoC explicitly decided not to consider any documents received on 05.06.2023, as mentioned in the meeting minutes. The Respondent also highlighted that the Appellant did not submit a plan in response to the first EOI but participated in the second EOI process. Additionally, a Resolution Professional filed an application for plan approval, which was under consideration. The Respondent argued that the Appellant cannot challenge the process after participating in the second EOI. The CoC's decision to invite fresh EOIs was based on the plan value being significantly lower than the liquidation value. Upon reviewing the submissions and the meeting minutes, the Tribunal found no merit in the Appellant's contentions. The Tribunal noted that the CoC explicitly decided to exclude submissions made after the final deadline to ensure fairness and adherence to the Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP) requirements. Regarding the challenge to the second EOI issuance, the Tribunal held that the Appellant's participation in the process precluded them from challenging it later. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the impugned order.
|
