9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the ‘Resolution Plan’ originally submitted by Mr. Mahesh Kr. Agarwal and now the ‘Successful Resolution Applicant’ with a view to remove the discrimination has proposed ‘Revised Resolution Plan’. For the said reason, we accept the ‘Revised Resolution Plan’ submitted by Mr. Mahesh Kr. Agarwal ‘Successful Resolution Applicant’ which should be treated to be part of the original ‘Resolution Plan’ as approved by the Adjudicating Authority. The stand taken by the 3rd Respondent- ‘Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited’ that they have moved against the order of adjournment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In absence of any order of stay and as the ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ has completed more than 270 days, we decided to dispose of the appeal, to give effect to the approved ‘Resolution Plan’, not challenged by ‘Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited’ Thus, the period of pendency of this appeal before this Appellate Tribunal i.e. from 22nd November, 2017 till today for calculating the period of 270 days - appeal disposed off. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 289 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2018 - Mr S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson And Mr Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .FREE TERM LOAN 1 EDELWEISS (Class A) 27,811.21 20,858.41 (75%) 6,952.80 2 JM (Class A) 6,510.61 4,882.96 (75%) 1,627.65 3 PEGASUS (Class A) 581.21 435.91 (75%) 145.30 4 OBC (Class A) 5,216.95 3,912.71 (75%) 1,304.24 ICICI BANK (Class A) 1,530.03 1,147.52 (75%) 382.51 6 SREI (Class B) 10,346.00 5,173.00 (50%) 5,173.00 7 IFCI (Class B) 8,505.00 4,252.50 (50%) 4,252.50 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) Interest will be payable to all Financial Creditors on the Settlement amount as per the approved Resolution Plan. (2) In case of Pegasus, they have already received the Liquidation value of ₹ 32 lacs and have issued their No Due Certificate. 7. Further, this Hon ble Tribunal vide order dated November 28, 2017 stayed the implementation of the Resolution Plan. Subsequently, this Hon ble Tribunal, by its order dated December 15, 2017, had directed the management to ensure that the Corporate Debtor continues as a going concern. In view of the pendency of this matter for more than one year, with an interim order staying the implementation of the Resolution Plan in force, the Respondent No. 2 humbly requests for an extension of the implementation period of the Resolution Plan, proportionately, i.e., approximately one year. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant- Srei Equipment Finance Limited submitted that the amount as shown payable to the Appellant under the proposed Revised Resolution Plan is acceptable to the Appellant. 4. Mr. Dinkar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Pegasus , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 526 of 2018 , this Appellate Tribunal while noticed the provisions of Regulation 38 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate persons) Regulations, 2016, observed and held as follows: 8. From the aforesaid provisions of I B Code it is clear that the Board may make regulation but it should be consistent with the I B Code and rules made therein (by Central Government) to carry out the provisions of the Code. Therefore, we hold that the provisions made by the Board cannot override the provisions of I B Code nor it can be inconsistent with the Code. 9. Clause (b) and (c) of Regulation 38(1) being inconsistent with the provisions of I B Code, and the legislators having not made any discrimination between the same set of group such as Financial Creditor or Operational Creditor , Board by its Regulation cannot mandate that the Resolution Plan should provide liquidation value to the Operational Creditors (clause (b) of regulation 38(1)) or liquidation value to the dissenting Financial Creditors (clause (c) of regulation 38(1)). Such regulation being against Section 240(1) cannot be taken into consideration and any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the stand taken by the 3rd Respondent- Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited that they have moved against the order of adjournment before the Hon ble Supreme Court. In absence of any order of stay and as the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process has completed more than 270 days, we decided to dispose of the appeal, to give effect to the approved Resolution Plan , not challenged by Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited . 12. This apart, we have noticed that in the Revised Resolution Plan , has not changed its proposal in so far it relates to 3rd Respondent- Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and thereby the 3rd Respondent will not be affected on acceptance of Revised Resolution Plan . The 3rd Respondent- Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited has also not challenged the original Resolution Plan before this Appellate Tribunal and thereby seems to be happy with the proposal as made in the original Resolution Plan in respect to it. 13. Taking into aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we exclude the period of pendency of this appeal before this Appellate Tribunal i.e. from 22nd November, 2017 till today for calcula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
