9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 402 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyImplementation of the Resolution Plan as Approved - Prayer for exclusion of the lease land from the assets of the Corporate Debtor rejected - The respondent alleged that the appellant, as the landowner, obstructed the implementation of the Resolution Plan by preventing access to common facilities and services essential for the functioning of the corporate debtor. HELD THAT - Having upheld the Resolution Plan and granted liberty, both the parties are to act in pursuance of the liberty as granted and the order being only an interim direction and the application being still pending, there are no reason to entertain this Appeal. While disposing of the application, Adjudicating Authority shall take into consideration the judgment of this Tribunal of the date in SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS MR. AVISHEK GUPTA, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL SARGA HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED UNDER CIRP , JC FLOWERS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, SHRIRAM MULTICOM PRIVATE LIMITED 2024 (4) TMI 321 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI as contained in paragraph 13 of the judgment. Appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority regarding the implementation of a Resolution Plan in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Issue 1: Challenge to the order dated 23.02.2024 The Appellant filed an Appeal challenging the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 23.02.2024 in response to an application filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) seeking various directions. Issue 2: Relief sought by the SRA in IA No.435 of 2024 The SRA prayed for several reliefs in IA No.435 of 2024, including directions to prevent interference in the hotel premises, protection of employees, assistance in plan implementation, maintenance of law and order, and punishment for contravening the resolution plan. Issue 3: Arguments presented by the Appellant The Appellant's counsel argued that the Adjudicating Authority hurriedly passed the order without giving a proper opportunity to respond, and the Resolution Plan approval is under challenge in other appeals. They highlighted the need to await the decision of the Tribunal in the pending appeals before implementing the plan. Issue 4: Arguments presented by the Resolution Professional The Resolution Professional contended that the Resolution Plan had already been approved, and the order on 23.02.2024 was an interim measure to ensure the Corporate Debtor's operations continue smoothly. They emphasized the entitlement of the Corporate Debtor to use shared facilities as per the approved plan. Issue 5: Arguments presented by the SRA The SRA's counsel argued that the Resolution Plan implementation was not halted by the Tribunal and highlighted issues faced during implementation, such as obstruction by security guards preventing access to shared services. They mentioned the payment made as part of the plan and the importance of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Judgment Summary: The Tribunal disposed of the Appeal, considering the previous order upholding the Resolution Plan and granting certain liberties to the parties. It emphasized the need for both parties to act in accordance with the granted liberty and the interim nature of the 23.02.2024 order. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to consider the Tribunal's previous judgment while deciding on the pending application.
|
