9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 622 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyApproval of Resolution Plan - HELD THAT - Since the Resolution Plan which is under challenge in the present Appeal is still under consideration before the COC this Appeal has become infructuous in the circumstances. In the present Appeal the Appellant had challenged the approved Resolution Plan on the ground that COC ought to have considered the 2nd settlement proposal of the Appellant during the pendency of IA No. 449 of 2021. Based on the application of the promoter the Adjudicating Authority had directed the COC to consider the 2nd settlement plan. The said Order was challenged in Company Appeal (AT) (insolvency) No. 370 376-377 and 393 of 2021. These Appeal has been allowed by this Appellate Tribunal and impugned Order dated 19 May 2021 directing the Administrator of the DHFL to place the 2nd settlement proposal of Kapil Wadhawan before the COC for consideration decision and voting has been set aside - Therefore this issue does not remain pending for our consideration in the present Appeal. Appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. Non-consideration of the 2nd Settlement Proposal by the Respondents. 3. Allegations of irregularities and lack of transparency in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). 4. Concerns regarding the treatment of public depositors and debenture holders. 5. Dispute over the valuation of the Corporate Debtor and the Resolution Plan. 6. Allegations of malafide conduct and abuse of process by public officers/institutions. 7. Dispute over the conduct of the CIRP and the interests of stakeholders. 8. Challenge to the denial of participation and lack of information provided to the Appellant. 9. Issue of participation rights of superseded directors in COC meetings. 10. Decision on the issues already addressed in connected appeals. Detailed Analysis: 1. The Appellant challenged the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, alleging irregularities and lack of transparency in the CIRP. The Appellant, a promoter shareholder of the Corporate Debtor, contended that the Resolution Plan approved resulted in significant haircuts for creditors, including public depositors, and that a Settlement Proposal offering higher repayment was not considered. 2. The Appellant raised concerns over the non-consideration of the 2nd Settlement Proposal, which offered a substantially higher amount compared to the approved Resolution Plan. The Appellant argued that the failure to evaluate this proposal contradicted the objective of maximizing the value of the Corporate Debtor, as mandated by the Code. 3. The Appellant accused the Respondents of undervaluing the financial assets of the Corporate Debtor, leading to an inadequate Resolution Plan. The Appellant highlighted the potential recovery from the retail book and investments, asserting that the value of the Corporate Debtor was underestimated in the approved Resolution Plan. 4. Allegations of malafide conduct and abuse of process were made against public officers/institutions involved in the CIRP. The Appellant claimed that the actions of the Respondents were against the public interest and the objectives of the Code, resulting in losses for stakeholders, including public depositors. 5. Disputes arose regarding the treatment of public depositors, the valuation of the Corporate Debtor, and the fairness of the Resolution Plan. The Appellant emphasized the need to protect the interests of all stakeholders and ensure a just resolution process. 6. The Appellant challenged the denial of participation and lack of information provided during the CIRP, asserting violations of procedural justice. The Appellant sought to address issues related to transparency, fairness, and the rights of stakeholders in the resolution process. 7. The issue of participation rights of superseded directors in COC meetings was raised, leading to a decision that such directors, after vacation or removal from office, cannot claim entitlement to participate in the COC of the Corporate Debtor. 8. The decision highlighted that the issues raised in the Appeal had already been addressed in connected appeals, indicating that the resolution of those issues would be considered part of the decision in the present Appeal. The Appeal was decided accordingly, with no order as to costs.
|
