9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d withdrawn. It appears that Consent Terms did not fructify and completely failed. On 16.06.2017 a Notice under Section 8 of the Code was issued. In its response dated 29.06.2017, respondent No.2 submitted inter alia that the Terms of Consent were void and unenforceable - thereafter, the application under Section 11(6) as aforesaid was withdrawn on 14.09.2017. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the petition under Section 9 of the I.B. Code vide Order dated 25.03.2018 against which an appeal was preferred. The appeal was dismissed by the NCLAT - appeal dismissed. - Civil Appeal No. 2730 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2020 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran For the Appellant : P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Committee of Creditors as the same could not muster the requisite 90% voting share. 12. It is pertinent to mention that the said Resolution Plan of the APSEZL was found to be in compliance with Section 30(2) of the I B Code and Regulation 38 of the CIRP Regulations. Since, the withdrawal resolution under `Section 12A of the I B Code stood rejected by the members of the Committee of Creditors , as per the instructions of the Committee of Creditors in its 22nd Meeting, the Resolution Professional put the Resolution Plan submitted by APSEZL for voting by the members of the Committee of Creditors . The voting on the same commenced on 17th September, 2019 and concluded on 19th September, 2019. 13. On 19th September, 2019, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the issue which got crystallized in the orders dated 18.04.2018 and 23.05.2018, whereafter the matter was adjourned on 12.07.2018 and 17.10.2019, was not decided by the NCLAT while disposing of the appeal. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent-original applicant submitted that as against the claims amounting to ₹ 30 crores which were subject matter of the arbitration notice, the claims received by the CoC are to the tune of ₹ 3000 crores and the voting pattern referred to in the above quoted paragraphs from the order of NCLAT discloses near unanimity amongst the claimants. Though the issue as framed in the orders dated 18.04.2018 and 23.05.2018 was not decided by the NCLAT, in our view, in keepi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
