2020 (12) TMI 1133 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Appointment of Fresh Valuer - Disputes were raised with regard to the valuation of tangible and intangible assets - HELD THAT - It appears to us that it was not appropriate to keep shuttling the matter on an issue on which the Resolution Professional has acted after the Orders were passed by the third Hon ble Member. The Corporation Bank had objections with regard to the valuation done earlier and thereafter another Valuer has been appointed and it appears that Report has been filed. Still Appellant is objecting. When such developments have taken place, on technical issues, we do not intend to interfere with the Impugned Order. There is no reason to interfere with the Impugned Order. It would further prolong the delayed CIRP proceedings which would not be in the interest of the Corporate Debtor - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over valuation of tangible and intangible assets.
2. Appointment of independent valuer for fresh valuation.
3. Disagreement on the need for a fresh valuation.
4. Challenge to the order before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
5. Review of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
6. Approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors.

Analysis:
1. The dispute in this case revolves around the valuation of tangible and intangible assets of the Corporate Debtor, leading to objections from Corporation Bank regarding the valuation process. The Adjudicating Authority directed the appointment of an independent valuer for a fresh valuation due to discrepancies in the valuation reports submitted.

2. The Member (Technical) disagreed with the need for a fresh valuation and dismissed the application for the same. Subsequently, multiple appeals were filed challenging the orders passed by different members of the tribunal, leading to a review of the decision by various benches.

3. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented by all parties involved, upheld the decision to continue with the same valuer, GAA Advisory, for the valuation process. The tribunal emphasized the need to expedite the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and avoid unnecessary delays.

4. The tribunal acknowledged the objections raised by Corporation Bank but highlighted that the majority of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) supported the appointment of GAA Advisory for valuation. The decision aimed to prevent further delays in the CIRP, considering the significant time already elapsed and the financial burden on the Corporate Debtor.

5. Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that interfering with the impugned order would prolong the CIRP proceedings, which would not be beneficial for the Corporate Debtor. The decision was made to maintain the continuity of the valuation process and uphold the commercial wisdom of the CoC in appointing GAA Advisory for the valuation.

6. The Resolution Professional was directed to continue with the valuation process as per the impugned order, ensuring that the CIRP progresses efficiently and in the best interest of all stakeholders involved.