9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 111 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking direction to Respondent to conduct the revaluation of the Corporate Debtor taking into account the current functioning of the Hospital - seeking to send back the current resolution plan to CoC of the Resolution applicant for enhancement of plan consideration or for consideration - seeking to allow the applicant to submit a settlement plan to the CoC and initiate withdrawal of the CIRP - Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. HELD THAT - The Resolution Professional took all steps as per the provisions of IBBI Regulations, before submitting the Resolution Plan to the CoC for its approval. Thereafter, only after the approval of CoC, the Resolution Professional filed the Resolution Plan for approval of this Adjudicating Authority. It is seen that wide publicity has been made inviting expression of Interest for getting a prospective Resolution Applicant, so that the maximum value be received for the assets and properties of the Corporate Debtor - The value assessed by both the valuers are more or less same, except few difference in the value. The resolution professional has not accepted the value given by Mr. Patel only. He has computed the value in accordance with the internationally accepted valuation standards, after physical verification of the fixed assets of the Corporate Debtor. The fair value and the value arrived at by both groups of the registered valuers were not significantly different. Hence, he has not appointed a fresh valuer. 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 - the applicant has approached with this IA only on 15.2.2021 ie., at the eleventh hour, when the Plan is to be approved. It seems, this is only for delaying the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, which cannot be accepted. As rightly stated by the Resolution Professional, if the applicant is aggrieved by the Resolution Plan, under Section 61(3), she can very well approach the appellate authority for redressal of her grievances. In view of the pronouncements of the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Hon ble NCLAT, as stated earlier in this order, this Tribunal cannot entertain the claim put forward by the applicant herein for rejection of the Resolution Plan at this stage. Submission of Settlement Plan to the CoC - HELD THAT - It is too late to grant such a prayer because the events narrated by the Resolution Professional in his reply regarding non-cooperation of the Suspended MD/Directors of the Corporate Debtor during the CIR Process makes it very clear that there is no attempt on the part of the Corporate Debtor to produce a better settlement plan. The Resolution Professional has produced various emails sent by him to the suspended Directors since they sent a mail to him to submit a better Resolution Plan, requesting them to give such a settlement plan immediately, so that he can place it before the CoC. But they did not care to do so. Even in the CoC meeting held on 26th December, 2020 the email received from Mrs.PV Mini, applicant herein, which was a mail stating that possibility to bringing a fresh resolution plan by a prospective resolution applicant has been placed. Since the email does not contain any specific details about prospective applicant, plan consideration, timelines to be followed etc. and that the mail is completely silent about the submission of the Expression of Interest, after detailed deliberations, the CoC unanimously decided to reject the proposal submitted by the applicant herein in view of insufficiency of information and due to the limited time period available to complete the CIR Process. In the same CoC the final Resolution Plan was discussed and approved by the COC - the applicant/Suspended MD of the Corporate Debtor is not diligent in bringing in another Resolution Applicant, who can offer better amount, but it seems that the applicant s only intention is to delay the proceedings - the Corporate Debtor cannot file a Section 12A application as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. This Tribunal do not find any cogent reason to entertain this application and grant any relief sought for in this application - Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Revaluation of the Corporate Debtor. 2. Sending back the current resolution plan to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for enhancement or reconsideration. 3. Allowing the applicant to submit a settlement plan and initiate withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). 4. Allegations of collusion between the Resolution Professional (RP) and the Resolution Applicant. 5. Compliance with the provisions of the IBC and related regulations. Detailed Analysis: 1. Revaluation of the Corporate Debtor: The applicant argued that the valuation of the Corporate Debtor was significantly diminished since the hospital was not functioning at the time of valuation. The applicant contended that the hospital is now fully operational and treating Covid-19 patients, which should be taken into account. The RP, however, had appointed two valuers who computed the fair and liquidation values, and these values were not significantly different. The Tribunal found that the RP had complied with the valuation standards and regulations, and thus, revaluation was not warranted. 2. Sending Back the Current Resolution Plan to CoC: The applicant claimed that the current resolution plan did not maximize the value of the Corporate Debtor’s assets and proposed sending it back to the CoC for enhancement. The RP countered that the plan was approved by the CoC with 100% voting rights and was compliant with the IBC. The Tribunal noted that the RP had taken all necessary steps as per the IBBI Regulations and that no other interested parties had come forward with a better resolution plan. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the request to send back the resolution plan to the CoC. 3. Allowing Submission of a Settlement Plan and Withdrawal of CIRP: The applicant sought permission to submit a settlement plan and initiate withdrawal of the CIRP under Section 12A of the IBC. The RP highlighted the non-cooperation from the suspended Board of Directors and the failure to submit any settlement plan despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal observed that the applicant had ample time to submit a settlement plan but failed to do so. Given the time-bound nature of the CIRP and the lack of diligence from the applicant, the Tribunal denied this request. 4. Allegations of Collusion: The applicant alleged collusion between the RP and the Resolution Applicant to take over the Corporate Debtor for the lowest possible consideration. The RP refuted these allegations, stating that the valuation and resolution plan processes were conducted transparently and in compliance with the IBC. The Tribunal found no merit in the allegations of collusion, noting that the RP had maintained confidentiality and followed due process. 5. Compliance with IBC Provisions: The Tribunal examined whether the RP had complied with the provisions of the IBC and related regulations. It was found that the RP had adhered to the requirements of Regulation 27 and 35 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The CoC had approved the resolution plan with 100% voting rights, and the plan met the requirements of Sub-Section (2) of Section 30 of the IBC. The Tribunal concluded that the RP had followed all necessary procedures, and the resolution plan was in compliance with the IBC. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the application MA (IBC)/01/KOB/2021, finding no cogent reason to grant any relief sought by the applicant. The RP had complied with all relevant regulations and procedures, and the resolution plan was approved by the CoC and met the legal requirements. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had alternative remedies available under Section 61(3) of the IBC to appeal against the resolution plan. The application was dismissed without costs.
|
