Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (4) TMI 675

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... st the CoC, the resolution applicant would have preferred IA against the decision of the CoC. Whereas in the instant case, the IA is preferred by the suspended board of director of the Corporate Debtor Company. Further, this Adjudicating Authority cannot question the wisdom of the CoC and their recommendation for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor Company. This Adjudicating Authority is of a considered view that there shall be an order of liquidation in respect of the Corporate Debtor Company Ardor Global Private Limited and direct the Liquidator to issue a public announcement stating that Corporate Debtor Company is in liquidation - Application allowed. - IA NOS. 22 & 344 OF 2018, CP(IB) NO. 33 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 26-8-2019 - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s filed before this Adjudicating Authority. However, there was opposition to the appointment of Shri Ramubhai S Patel and in connection therewith, three IAs were filed before this Adjudicating Authority. 1.4 In the meantime, the IRP, so appointed by this Adjudicating Authority, has already made public announcement on 04.08.2017 calling upon the claims from the creditors in view of the order dated 31.07.2017 of this Adjudicating Authority. 1.5 This Adjudicating Authority vide its order 14.11.2017 declined to recommend the name of Shri Ramubhai S Patel to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (hereinafter referred to as IBBI) since the same was proposed by the CoC in violation of the prescribed provisions of the IB Code. 1.6 I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t regulations under the IB Code. However, the resolution plan was rejected by the CoC on the ground that plan was not upto the expectation and also the consideration of collateral securities in the plan was not accepted by the CoC. 4. Thereafter, resolution plan of one M/s. GSEC Limited was considered and rejected by CoC in its 11th meeting held on 17.4.2018 and CoC in its 12th meeting held on 24.04.2018 resolved to recommend Corporate Debtor Company for liquidation. However, CoC has not expressed its consent or dissent either for continuation of the applicant Resolution Professional as Liquidator or appointment of new candidate as the Liquidator. 5. That after filing of the application being IA No. 228 of 2018 under sections 33(1), 3 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Counsels of the above mentioned Interlocutory Applications. Thus, before disposal of the IA 228 of 2018 for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor Company, it is imperative to dispose of the Interlocutory Application filed by the suspended board of director of the Corporate Debtor Company under section 60(5)(c) of the IB Code. 7. We, the Adjudicating Authority, at this Bench have gone through all the documents submitted with the application and also placed on record and are of the considered view that the Applicant who is the suspended board of director of the Corporate Debtor Company has no locusstandi to make this application. 7.1 From the facts placed before this Adjudicating Authority, it is observed that RP in response to calling o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reme Court in K. Sasidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank [2019] 152 SCL 312. It is held that supremacy of CoC and their commercial wisdom cannot be questioned. It is also observed that National Company Law Tribunal has no jurisdiction and authority to analyse or evaluate the commercial decision of the CoC to enquire into the justness of the rejection of the Resolution Plan by the dissenting financial creditors. 7.4 As far as substitution of the Respondent No. 9 with another resolution applicant as prayed for by the applicant of IA 344 of 2018, this Adjudicating Authority cannot consider this prayer being contingent in nature and in view of the time line prescribed by the IB Code for completion of CIR Process when CIRP has already expired on 26. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates