9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 616 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcySubmission of Resolution Plan - NCLT allowed the request for Extension/ exclusion of 90 days for re-publication of invitation for the Expression of Interest (EOI) (Form-G). It is contended that 300 days were going to expire on 15.04.2021 and the extension of 90 days on the basis of request from a stranger just two days before the expiry of the CIRP period, ought not to have been entertained. HELD THAT - There can be no dispute to the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors 2019 (11) TMI 731 - SUPREME COURT that 330 days is the maximum period provided by the Code for the completion of CIRP - The present is a case where 300 days were expiring on 15.04.2021 and prior to expiry of the 300 days period, a decision was taken to re-publish Form-G. The CoC has reason to take a decision since they received an email from Respondent No.1 offering higher value. The objective of the IBC is to maximize the value of the Corporate Debtor and decision taken by the CoC to re-publish Form-G cannot be faulted in the facts of the present case. Reference made to judgment of this Tribunal in Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. v. torrent Investments Pvt. Ltd. Ors. 2023 (3) TMI 176 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI wherein this Tribunal while deciding the jurisdiction of CoC to re-issue RFRP held even after completion of Challenge Mechanism under Regulation 39(1A)(b), the CoC retain its jurisdiction to negotiate with one or other Resolution Applicants, or to annul the Resolution Process and embark on to re-issue RFRP. Regulation 39(1A) cannot be read as a fetter on the powers of the CoC to discuss and deliberate and take further steps of negotiations with the Resolution Applicants, which resolutions are received after completion of Challenge Mechanism. The present is not a case that EOI from Respondent No.1 has been received after the due date. Rather, a decision was taken to re-publish the Form-G, giving opportunity to all including the Appellant and Respondent No.1. Thus, the judgment of this Tribunal in Dwarkadhish Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. 2021 (6) TMI 989 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI is clearly distinguishable. It is true that Adjudicating Authority has rejected the IA No.328/2021 observing that issue of alleged breach of confidentiality cannot be adjudicated as it has only a summary jurisdiction in the matter - Adjudicating Authority has full authority to examine all issues arising out of insolvency resolution process. However, in the facts of the present case, especially when the Appellant was asked in the 19th Meeting of the CoC to increase its Plan value and further has submitted that he has no objection for issuance of fresh Form-G, which is recorded in the Minutes, the CoC decided to issue fresh Form-G for giving opportunity to all eligible candidates including the Appellant, no exception can be taken to the process. Respondent No.1 in his application has categorically pleaded that he has filed Resolution Plan on the basis of information, which are available in the public domain, hence, any inquiry on alleged breach of confidentiality was not called for in the facts of the present case. The present is not a case that Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No.1 by email before 15.04.2021 was considered on merits. Rather, the CoC took a decision to issue fresh Form-G to give opportunity to all with the object of maximizing the value of Corporate Debtor - there are no error in the impugned order, warranting interference by this Appellate Tribunal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Extension/Exclusion of CIRP period for re-publication of Form-G. 2. Rejection of Appellant's revised Resolution Plan. 3. Alleged breach of confidentiality by the Resolution Professional (RP). Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Extension/Exclusion of CIRP period for re-publication of Form-G The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chandigarh Bench, allowed the extension of 90 days for the re-publication of Form-G as requested by the RP. The Appellant argued that the extension beyond the 330 days limit should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Essar Steel. The Tribunal observed that the decision to re-publish Form-G was taken by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to maximize the value of the Corporate Debtor's assets. The CoC's decision was based on a higher bid received from another applicant, Mr. Sunil Bajaj, just before the 19th CoC meeting. The Tribunal upheld the NCLT's decision, noting that the objective of the IBC is to maximize the value of the Corporate Debtor and that the CoC's decision fell within this objective. Issue 2: Rejection of Appellant's revised Resolution Plan The Appellant's revised Resolution Plan was under consideration when a higher bid was received from another applicant. The CoC requested the Appellant to increase its bid, which the Appellant refused. Consequently, the CoC decided to re-publish Form-G to invite more Resolution Applicants. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had no objection to the re-publication of Form-G, as recorded in the minutes of the 19th CoC meeting. The Tribunal found no fault in the CoC's decision to re-publish Form-G, emphasizing that the CoC has the jurisdiction to take such steps to maximize the value of the Corporate Debtor. Issue 3: Alleged breach of confidentiality by the RP The Appellant alleged that the RP breached confidentiality by sharing information with another applicant. The NCLT rejected the Appellant's application for an inquiry into the breach, stating that it only had summary jurisdiction. The Tribunal disagreed with this observation, stating that the Adjudicating Authority has full authority to examine all issues arising out of the insolvency resolution process. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the Appellant's allegations, noting that the RP and Respondent No.1 had stated that the information was obtained from the public domain. The Tribunal concluded that no inquiry was necessary in this case. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal, upholding the NCLT's decision to extend the CIRP period for 90 days and to re-publish Form-G. The Tribunal found no error in the NCLT's order and emphasized that the CoC's decision was aimed at maximizing the value of the Corporate Debtor's assets. The Appellant's allegations of breach of confidentiality were also dismissed as baseless.
|
