9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oved a Resolution Plan on 10.11.2020 and the said plan is placed now before this Adjudicating Authority by the RP for consideration. Thus, the Suspended Management of the CD be given a chance to submit Resolution Plan as prayed for - application disposed off. - I.A. No. 5 of 2021 in C.P. (IB) No. 9/GB/2019 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2021 - Hari Venkata Subba Rao and Prasanta Kumar Mohanty, JJ. ORDER Prasanta Kumar Mohanty, J. 1. This IA has been filed by the Suspended Management -- Promoter, Shareholder and Chairman of the CD under CIRP Mr. Piyush Periwal under Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016 on 19.11.2020 seeking the following reliefs: 1. To declare the Information Memorandum circulated by the Respondent No. 2 to be a defective and incomplete document. 2. To allow the petitioner to file a composite Resolution Plan once the Respondent No. 2 files a revised IM after factoring all the important issues which have not been considered. 3. To allow the Petitioner to file Resolution Plan as the first right after the outcome of the decision passed by the NCLAT, within a reasonable time frame as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 4. To pass such othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... solution applicant under section 29A of the Code and is entitled to have the first opportunity to present the Resolution Plan. 9. That the Ministry of Finance has also observed that MSMEs form the foundation of the Indian economy, and are key providers of employment, production, economic growth, entrepreneurship and financial inclusion. As per the report of the World Bank on the Treatment of MSME Insolvency, it suggested that the approach to provide relief to MSMEs is to exempt or relax certain provisions from the regular insolvency process. 10. That the Petitioner on 05.09.2020 had written to the Respondent No. 2 pointing out errors in Information Memorandum (IM) prepared by the Respondent No. 2 and asked the Respondent No. 2 to make the requisite changes. The Petitioner has also asked the Respondent No. 2 in another email dated 05.09.2020 marked to the members of the Committee of Creditors (COC) of the Corporate Debtor to unfreeze the bank accounts of the Petitioner which were withheld without due authorization under law so that the Petitioner may meet the terms stipulated by the Respondent No. 2 for filing a suitable Resolution Plan. A copy of the emails dated 05.09.2020 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RM G inviting the first round of Expression of Interests on 19.10.2019 and two applicants successfully submitted EOIs by the stipulate deadline. However, without completing the process after resumption of CIRP on 27.04.2020, the Respondents decided to look for other parties to submit fresh EOIs in the 6th COC meeting held on 11.05.2020. It became evident that the Respondents are acting in collusion as the second roll-out of EOI invitation was unnecessary, unwarranted and unexplained. The Respondent No. 2 never intended to let the EOIs submitted by the previous Resolution Applicants culminate into Resolution Plans, despite repeated requests from the previous applicants to the RP to give them a deadline for submission of plans. Copy of minutes of the 6th COC meeting held on 11.05.2020 is attached with the application marked as ANNEXURE -- A7. 16. That the Respondent No. 2 to suit his own purpose continued the CIRP despite the Hon'ble NCLT stating on 28.01.2020 that the order of admission had not attained finality. The Respondent No. 2 obtained an order of extension of the CIRP by suppressing facts from the Tribunal and has again called for the 11th COC meeting on 07.10.2020 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was paid and the balance amount was not paid by the CD as per OTS arrangement. 22.8. 16.11.2018- The DRT by its order dated 16.11.2018 noted as under: As per record, SASF has not appeared in the proceeding for more than two years. There are numbers of writ pending before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court related to the mortgage property. SASF has not filed any report regarding status of the pending writs. It is clearly evident that SASF is not interested to proceed in this case. As a result this Tribunal is unable to take any step for recover of certificate amount due to non-cooperation of SASF. Hence, the matter is adjourned sine die, till such date SASF made its appearance and file proper affidavit to cooperate with the Tribunal in this matter. Nodal Officer of CHB is directed to hand over a copy of the day's order to the Zonal Head/Regional Head of CHB . 22.9. 12.03.2019- The FC here (SASF) initiated proceedings under Section 7 of IBC against the CD here (NPIL) in respect of the Corporate Guarantee before this Adjudicating Authority- CP (IB) No. 09/GB/2019. 22.10. The claim has been filed by the FC for ₹ 133,54,94,330.00 against the Corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .02.2002 instead of 21.02.2003 while computing limitation, we set aside the order passed by the NCLAT. We request the NCLAT to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. All questions including the submission raised on behalf of the respondent as to effect of the earlier proceeding initiated in 2001/2002 are kept open. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 22.18. 24.11.2020- Hon'ble NCLAT heard afresh and upheld the admission of the application by this Adjudicating Authority. The last part of the order of the Hon'ble NCLAT is reproduced below: 11..we are of the considered opinion that the application filed by the Respondent under Section 7 of I B Code for triggering CIRP against Respondent - Corporate Guarantor on 12th March, 2019 was not barred by limitation. Contention raised by the Appellant as regards plea of limitation and other contention in regard to discharge of obligation of Appellant - Corporate Guarantor towards SASF are accordingly repelled. 12. No other issue was pressed during hearing of Appeal. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. 22.19. Covid Pandemic sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) The CD here is in operation and the claim of ₹ 133,54,94,330.00 against the Corporate Guarantor for the loan of ₹ 3.07 crores might have pushed the MSME Unit to a point of NO RETURN/not to make an attempt to repay such a big amount. 2. The prayer made in this IA is accepted to the following extent only- (1) One chance is given to the Suspended Management of the CD, an MSME Unit as prayed for to submit a concrete composite Feasible and Viable Resolution Plan by 01.03.2021. No other one is allowed to submit any Plan. (2) The Resolution Professional will place the Resolution Plan immediately, if submitted in time, before the COC for their examination of the proposal in line with the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 15.11.2019 in the case of COC of Essar Steel India Ltd. vs. Satish Kumar Gupta others. (3) The information relating to the CD etc. made available to the present Resolution Applicant shall be made available to the Suspended Management of the CD for enabling them to submit a Resolution Plan. (4) The COC is at liberty to negotiate with the existing Resolution Applicant, the Suspended Management and accept the one which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
