9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 110 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking rejection of Resolution Plan - non-compliance with Regulation 35(a), 35(b) and 35(c) of CIRP regulations and Section 30(2)9f) of IBC 2016 and infringement of fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution of India thereby not complying with Section 30(2)() of the IBC 2016 - seeking rejection of Valuation report issued by Shri R,K. Patel as it is prepared negligently without any care and caution - seeking to appoint another valuer for land and building for complying with Regulation 35(a), 35(b) and 35(c) of CIRP Regulations - seeking directions to RP and CoC to reconvene the meeting to comply with the provisions of IBC 2016 and CIRP regulations upholding the fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution of India and arrive at a value of Resolution Plan which balances the interest of all stakeholders. Whether the applicant is eligible to get the reliefs to reject the Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant M/s Lissie Medical Institutions and also to reject the valuation report filed by Mr.R.K. Patel and to appoint another valuer convening another CoC? HELD THAT - This Tribunal finds that the Resolution Professional had complied with the provisions of Regulation 27 and 35 of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, before arriving at a decision to place the Resolution Plan before the CoC. The CoC approved the Resolution Plan with 100% voting right for approval by the Adjudicating Authority. Under Section 31(1) of the Code, for final approval of a Resolution Plan, the adjudicating authority has to be satisfied that the requirement of Sub Section (2) of Section 30 of the code has been complied with. On a verification of the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s Lissie Medical Institutions it is seen that requirement of Sub- Section (2) of Section 30 has been followed before submitting the Resolution Plan for the approval of the Adjudicating Authority. Section 31(1) of the Code lays down in clear terms that for final approval of a Resolution Plan, the Adjudicating Authority has to be satisfied that the requirement of Sub-Section (2) of Section 30 of the Code has been complied with. It is worthwhile to note that when the Resolution Professional has filed the Resolution Plan before this Tribunal, on a Caveat Petition, this applicant was also heard on 28.1.2021 and he has been given time to make his objection, if any, and the pronouncement of the approval of the Resolution Plan was fixed on 22.2.2021. However, the applicant approached with this IA only on 12.2.2021 (after curing the defects), ie., the last moment when the Plan is to be approved. It seems, this is only a delaying tactics putting hurdle in the process of approval of Resolution Plan by this Adjudicating Authority, which cannot be accepted. This Tribunal do not find any convincing reason to interfere with the request of the respondent Resolution Professional for approving the Resolution Plan - Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance of the Resolution Plan with CIRP regulations and IBC 2016. 2. Validity of the Valuation Report. 3. Discrimination between employee doctors and consultant doctors. 4. Adherence to the procedural and regulatory requirements by the Resolution Professional. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Compliance of the Resolution Plan with CIRP Regulations and IBC 2016: The applicant sought the rejection of the Resolution Plan on the grounds that it did not comply with Regulation 35(a), 35(b), and 35(c) of CIRP regulations and Section 30(2)(f) of IBC 2016. The applicant argued that the plan infringed upon fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. The Tribunal, however, found that the Resolution Professional had adhered to the provisions of the IBBI Regulations and that the CoC had approved the Resolution Plan after thorough consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that under Section 31(1) of the IBC, it must be satisfied that the requirements of Section 30(2) have been complied with, and it found no breach in the provisions. 2. Validity of the Valuation Report: The applicant contended that the valuation report by Shri R.K. Patel was negligently prepared and sought the appointment of another valuer. The Tribunal noted that the valuation was conducted by two independent Registered Valuers, and the fair value and liquidation value were computed in accordance with internationally accepted standards. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Maharashtra Seamless Limited vs. Padmanabhan Venkatesh & Ors., which stated that the valuation process assists the CoC in decision-making and is not a statutory mandate that the bid must match the liquidation value. The Tribunal found no significant difference in the values provided by the valuers and dismissed the need for a new valuation. 3. Discrimination between Employee Doctors and Consultant Doctors: The applicant argued that the Resolution Plan discriminated between employee doctors and consultant doctors, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal noted that the applicant was not a full-time employee and was classified as an operational creditor based on the nature of the claim forms submitted. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Swiss Ribbons Private Limited, which held that classification between various classes of creditors is neither discriminatory nor arbitrary. The Tribunal found no merit in the claim of discrimination. 4. Adherence to Procedural and Regulatory Requirements by the Resolution Professional: The applicant claimed that the Resolution Professional did not follow proper procedures and regulations. The Tribunal found that the Resolution Professional had complied with the provisions of Regulation 27 and 35 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The Tribunal emphasized that the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC with 100% voting rights and that the Adjudicating Authority’s role is limited to ensuring compliance with Section 30(2) of the IBC. The Tribunal reiterated that it cannot interfere with the commercial wisdom of the CoC. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no convincing reason to interfere with the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC. The Tribunal highlighted that the applicant could seek redressal through an appeal under Section 61(3) if aggrieved by the Resolution Plan. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
