2022 (3) TMI 1001 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Implementation of Resolution Plan - HELD THAT - One of the submissions which was sought to be raised by Learned Counsel for the Appellant was that an amount of ₹ 20 Crores was the purchase consideration. As per H-1 bid, the purchase consideration was the subject matter of consideration before the Board of Directors as well as Justice D.K Jain (Retd.) which was approved. In exercise of limited jurisdiction of the judicial review of an order of approval of the Resolution Plan, there are no reason to interfere with the order of approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, which got approval of each stage of Resolution Framework. No grounds have been made to interfere with the impugned order in this Appeal - Appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to approval of Resolution Plan by NCLT Mumbai Bench.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order dated 02.02.2021 by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, approving the Resolution Plan as directed by previous orders. The appellants, who are promoters of a company, challenged the Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT. The Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No.4 was approved by the Board of Directors and subsequently by Justice D.K Jain. The Tribunal also approved the Resolution Plan. The Respondent confirmed the implementation of the plan post the order date.

The appellants contended that the Respondent was requesting additional equity share infusion, reducing the value of the appellants' shares. The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and the record, considering the steps taken in line with the Resolution Framework approved in previous appeals. The Resolution Plan underwent various stages as per the Framework, including approval by the Board of Directors and Justice D.K Jain. The Tribunal acknowledged the steps taken and the approval process.

The approval by Justice D.K Jain was followed by an application before the Adjudicating Authority, which approved the Resolution Plan. The appellants raised concerns about the purchase consideration, which had been approved at earlier stages. The Tribunal, in its limited judicial review, found no reason to interfere with the order of approval. The Tribunal concluded that there were no grounds to challenge the impugned order. However, it noted that the appellants could pursue legal remedies for any inter se issues with Respondent No.4. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the above observations.