9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pliance with the Order of this Authority and utter disregard for Court orders and the law. Therefore, a strong displeasure is expressed by this Authority against the said member. Rejection of the Resolution Plan on the ground that Demand Draft for ₹ 10 Lakhs as stipulated in the Expression of Interest (Eol) was not submitted and exemption has been sought - HELD THAT:- Since, there is a provision for seeking exemption for deposit of the said money, so this ground was insufficient for rejection of Resolution Plan. Rejection on the ground that Applicants are willful defaulters being identified by Central Bank of India and State Bank of India, as they had not appeared for the personal interview, and that stage is over and RBI Publication is pending - HELD THAT:- The Resolution Applicant Mr. Ajay Agarwal has explained that he is neither a Promoter nor a Shareholder of M/s. Ankit Ispat Pvt. Ltd, whose account had been declared as NPA, and merely a nominee Director and do not have any managerial power or control over day-to-day affairs of the said Company. In view of it, the CoCs have reject the Resolution Plan on flimsy ground. Validity of rejection of the Resolution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iated against. the Corporate Debtor on 04.09.2009 on the Application filed by one of the Financial Creditors under CP/ 9951/2017. The Order of this Authority was challenged in Appeal before Hon ble Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed on 13.12.2017. The initial CIRP period of 180 days carne to an end on 03.03.2018 which has been extended for a further period of 90 days under Section 12(3) of the I B Code, 2016 which expired on 01.06.2018. 3. It has been submitted by the Applicants that on 04.04.2018 they have requested the Resolution Professional to give an opportunity to submit a Resolution Plan for revival of the Corporate Debtor but, without considering the prospective enforcement of the amendment of the Code, declined the request of the Applicants citing the provisions of Section 29A of the I B Code, 2016. 4. The Applicants have submitted that at an earlier point of time MA/208/2018 was filed in CP/551/2017 under Section 60(5) of I B Cede, 2016 and this Authority vide Order dated 31.08.2018 allowed the Application by holding that the Corporate Debtor is MSME, and the Applicants being the Promoters of the Corporate Debtor are eligible to file Resolution Plan. In pursuanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire value of the factory of the Corporate Debtor as per the books of accounts of the Company and the balance sheet is less than ₹ 12 Crores, whereas the Resolution Applicants have offered the Resolution Plan for ₹ 18 Crores and the liquidation value offered by the Resolution Professional is less than ₹ 10 Crores. viii. That the rejection of the Resolution Plan by the CoCs with pre-judged decision is more dangerous and damaging to the economy of the country. Thereby the Resolution Professional and CoCs have totally and miserably failed in their duty to consider the Resolution Plan on merits and the reasons given by them in the minutes of the meeting are totally erroneous and deserve to be set aside. 6. The Applicants have also filed Additional /Reply affidavit on 31.10.2018 wherein it has been submitted that one of the Applicants is merely a nominee Director of M/s. Ankit Ispat private Limited and does not have any managerial power or control over the Company and its day-to-day affairs and the Applicants are not disqualified under Section 29A of the I B Code, 2016. The Applicants have relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court given in Arcelor Mit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disqualified under Section 29A of the I B Code, 2016. It appears that the said member of the CoCs has been sitting over appeal of the Order dated 31.08.2018 passed by this Authority, wherein it has been held that the Corporate Debtor is MSME. This amounts to non-compliance with the Order of this Authority and utter disregard for Court orders and the law. Therefore, a strong displeasure is expressed by this Authority against the said member. 12. The second ground taken by the CoCs for rejection of the Resolution Plan is that Demand Draft for ₹ 10 Lakhs as stipulated in the Expression of Interest (Eol) was not submitted and exemption has been sought. Since, there is a provision for seeking exemption for deposit of the said money, so this ground was insufficient for rejection of Resolution Plan. 13. The third ground on the basis of which the Resolution Plan has been rejected is that the Applicants are willful defaulters being identified by Central Bank of India and State Bank of India, as they had not appeared for the personal interview, and that stage is over and RBI Publication is pending. In this connection the Resolution Applicant Mr. Ajay Agarwal has explained that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
