9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch other or further relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit to grant in the particular facts and circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts are thus: This Tribunal ordered commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP for short) of the Corporate Debtor as on 16th October, 2019 and the Respondent was appointed as the Resolution Professional as per Section 3(1A) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons), Regulations, 2016. The Committee of Creditors approved the Resolution Plan that was submitted by the Resolution Applicant, namely, Lissie Medical Institutions. The total plan consideration amount is Rs. 126,00,00,000 (Rupees one hundred and twenty six crores only). The plan has been placed before this Tribunal under Section 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the RP for its approval. 3. It is stated that after the commencement of the C.I.R.P, the R.P had appointed two valuers of whom Mr. Jigar Shah computed the fair value of the Corporator Debtor as Rs. 160,84,56,299 and the liquidation value as Rs. 121,24,22,480 and another valuer Mr. Reuban Joseph George valued the Corporate Debto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aims of the Corporate Debtor. The waterfall distribution of the plan consideration clearly shows that all the creditors are incurring huge losses, in the case of the operation creditors and the unsecured creditors only Rs. 1,00,00,000 has been set apart. 7. It is contended that the R.P on several instances had been approached by other prospective Resolution Applicants who proposed Resolution Plan with much higher amount than what has been approved now. During the initial meetings of the CoC the directors itself had made request regarding a prospective Resolution Applicant who was ready to submit the Resolution Plan with a plan consideration much higher than what is being offered at that time. This was discussed in length and breadth during the CoC meetings but the R. P. strongly opposed this suggestion and did not grant enough time for the prospective Resolution Applicant to submit a Resolution Plan for the approval of the CoC. The applicant has referred to the decision in the matter of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors 2020(8) SCC 531, and stated that in extraordinary or exceptional circumstances, the timeline of the CIRP can be ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly stressed corporate body. 10. In order to buttress his arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the following judgements/orders of the Hon'ble NCLAT/NCL Mumbai Bench: (i) Arokiasamy Joseb Raj Vs. Pathukasahasrm Raghunathan Raman& Others - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.117 of 2019. (ii) S.C.Sekaran Vs. Amit Gupta and others - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.495 & 496 of 2018. (iii) Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Amit Gupta and others - Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No.1120 of 2020 (iv) ICICI Bank Vs. Unimark Remedies Limited - MA 1406 in CP 197/I&B/NCLT/Mah/2018. 11. The Resolution Professional (respondent) filed a counter statement stating that the Suspended Board of Directors and Promoters had never extended assistance and cooperation to the Respondent which is imperative for the Respondent to manage the affairs of the Corporate Debtor and this fact was reported to this Tribunal vide MA/44/KOB/2019 filed under Section 19(2) and 19(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. He was unable to carry out his duties and responsibilities as mandated under the law due the non-cooperation from the part of the Suspended Board of D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Debtor. The valuations arrived at by the unqualified valuers appointed by the Board of Directors, prior to the commencement of the CIRP, are intended solely for internal management purpose and the same cannot be considered as a yardstick for the purpose of valuation in accordance with Regulation 27 and 35 of the CIRP Regulations. 13. It is further stated that during the deliberations on the Resolution Plan made at the meeting of Committee of Creditors held on 14th October, 2020, Mr. P V Chandran, Promoter of the Corporate Debtor had opined that the amount quoted by the Resolution Applicant is extremely low and requested the Respondent to provide an opportunity to a person within his contact circle to submit a Resolution Plan for consideration of the Committee. Since the time limit prescribed under the Code for submission of the Expression of Interest was already exhausted, the Respondent herein opined that a fresh Resolution Plan shall be considered only with the approval of the Adjudicating Authority based on the decision of the Committee of Creditors. The Respondent had also requested Mr. P V Chandran to update on the specifics of the proposal, detailing the name of the prospect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or had requested for relaxation of the eligibility norms fixed by the Committee of Creditors. The CoC had fixed the eligibility norms cautiously to ensure that only serious parties are participating in the process of submission of the Resolution Plan. The Respondent submitted that he had sent emails to the Promoters of the Corporate Debtor on 24th March, 2020, 09th May, 2020, 18th May, 2020, 04th June, 2020, 05th June, 2020, 13th June, 2020, 0lst July, 2020, 09th July, 2020, 28th August, 2020 requesting them to rectify the defects in the Expression of Interest in order to be eligible to participate in the Resolution Plan Submission Process. It was further stated that the Promoters of the Corporate Debtor had not made any effort to reply and rectify the discrepancies brought to their attention by the Respondent, with the sole intention to unnecessarily prolong the CIRP with ulterior motives. 15. It is also stated that the Respondent had received the valuation reports from both pairs of Registered Valuers by May, 2020. The Respondent had maintained absolute confidentiality of the fair value and liquidation value as mandated under the Code and had not disclosed the same to anyone inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration is found as defective or rejected in view of that permitting any new participants to submit EOI at the said late stage would be highly detrimental to the CIRP and shall be against the Resolution Applicant who had submitted the EOI and Resolution Plan within the lime frame stipulated in the Expression of Interest published by the Respondent. As authorized by the Committee of Creditors, the Respondent sent a reply mentioning the decision of the CoC to M/s Baby Memorial Hospital Limited on 03rd December, 2020. Except the above hospital, nobody approached the Resolution Professional with a better offer and Resolution Plan. 17. Regarding the email sent by the Applicant on 23rd December, 2020, it is submitted that the Respondent had duly placed the letter before the Committee of Creditors, in its meeting held on 26th December, 2020 and after evaluating the contents of the mail, the Committee of Creditors had unanimously decided to reject the proposal submitted by Mrs. P V Mini as the email does not contain any specific details about "prospective applicant, plan consideration, timelines etc to be followed etc which are very much essential for the Committee to form an opinion. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revaluation to be ordered by sending back the Resolution Plan to the CoC and to allow the applicant to submit a settlement plan to the CoC and initiate withdrawal of the CIRP under Section 12A of the IBC? 21. On a close reading of the history of the case mentioned above it is crystal clear that the Resolution Professional took all steps as per the provisions of IBBI Regulations, before submitting the Resolution Plan to the CoC for its approval. Thereafter, only after the approval of CoC, the Resolution Professional filed the Resolution Plan for approval of this Adjudicating Authority. It is seen that wide publicity has been made inviting expression of Interest for getting a prospective Resolution Applicant, so that the maximum value be received for the assets and properties of the Corporate Debtor. If the contention of the applicant is accepted, a question arises here why any other interested persons, who can offer a more valued Resolution Plan than the present one had not come forward to submit a Resolution Plan. The technical stags stated by the applicant that one of the valuer assessed a less value and other valuer has given a good value cannot be accepted. The value assessed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been given time to make his objection, if any, and the pronouncement of orders in IA(IBC)/13/KOB/2021 (for approval of the Resolution Plan) was fixed on 22.2.2021. However, the applicant has approached with this IA only on 15.2.2021 ie., at the eleventh hour, when the Plan is to be approved. It seems, this is only for delaying the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, which cannot be accepted. As rightly stated by the Resolution Professional, if the applicant is aggrieved by the Resolution Plan, under Section 61(3), she can very well approach the appellate authority for redressal of her grievances. In view of the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble NCLAT, as stated earlier in this order, this Tribunal cannot entertain the claim put forward by the applicant herein for rejection of the Resolution Plan at this stage. 24. Regarding the prayer to allow applicant to submit a Settlement Plan to the CoC, it is too late to grant such a prayer because the events narrated by the Resolution Professional in his reply regarding non-cooperation of the Suspended MD/Directors of the Corporate Debtor during the CIR Process makes it very clear th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
