9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 79 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyApproval of Resolution Plan - HELD THAT - It is well settled that commercial wisdom of CoC in approving the resolution plan is not to be interfered by the Adjudicating Authority in its judicial review and limited ground for interference with the resolution plan is only when resolution plan violates or is in non-compliance of Section 30(2) of the Code. The Appellant has no such right that its resolution plan should be approved by the CoC which proposition has already been laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in ARCELORMITTAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS SATISH KUMAR GUPTA ORS. 2018 (10) TMI 312 - SUPREME COURT . There are no ground in this Appeal warranting any interference with the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 04th January, 2024 by which the Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan. The CoC after considering the Resolution Plan of the Appellant and all other Resolution Applicants has approved the resolution plan of Respondent No. 3 with 100% vote share which resolution plan has ultimately been approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 04th January, 2024. There are no ground to interfere with the order dated 04th January, 2024. There is no merit in the Appeal, the Appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to the approval of a Resolution Plan by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, and the subsequent appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Issue 1: Consideration of Resolution Plan The Appellant, an Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant, challenged the approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No. 3. The Appellant contended that their revised plan offered a higher value compared to the approved plan but was not considered by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The Appellant also raised concerns about the constitution of the CoC, alleging improper ousting of a member. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Appellant's application seeking consideration of their revised plan, leading to the current appeal. Issue 2: Jurisdiction and Approval of Resolution Plan The Resolution Professional and CoC argued that the Appellant, as an unsuccessful applicant, lacked standing to challenge the approval of the Resolution Plan. They emphasized that the CoC, after due consideration, approved the plan of Respondent No. 3 with 100% vote share. They asserted that the Adjudicating Authority's role is limited to ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. They highlighted that there were no allegations of non-compliance with the Code in the approved plan. Judgment: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, after hearing arguments from all parties, upheld the approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No. 3. The Tribunal noted that the CoC's decision to approve the plan was based on commercial wisdom and within its authority. The Tribunal cited precedents to support the principle that the CoC's decisions are not subject to interference unless there is a violation of specific legal provisions. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's order approving the Resolution Plan. Consequently, the Appeal by the Appellant was dismissed.
|
