9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... May 2021 directing the Administrator of the DHFL to place the 2nd settlement proposal of Kapil Wadhawan before the COC for consideration decision, and voting has been set aside - Therefore, this issue does not remain pending for our consideration in the present Appeal. Appeal disposed off. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .3, i.e. ₹ 37,250 Crores. Since this settlement proposal is substantially higher (approx. 150%) than the value offered by the highest bidder, the same ought to have been at least placed before Respondent No.2 for its consideration. 4. Having not even considered the 2nd Settlement Proposal, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have acted contrary to the very object for which the Code was enacted, i.e. maximisation of value of a Corporate Debtor. As well as delinquent to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India. The 2nd Settlement proposal ensures that thousands of small investors and Fixed Deposit holders would be paid fully. Further, the settlement proposal would have also significantly benefitted the Financial Creditors, i.e. Banks, Financial Institutions, as no haircut is envisaged in the 2nd Settlement Proposal to any creditors. The said proposal is based on the intrinsic value of DHFL, which is verifiable from the following: a. When DHFL was admitted into the CIRP, i.e. on 03 December 2019, it had cash reserves of approximately ₹ 2500-3000 crores. Over the one year and six months that the CIRP has lasted and after payment of al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esale books appears to have been seriously understated in the present case. Based on the correct valuation of such financial assets, SBI Capital Markets (a wholly-owned investment subsidiary of SBI, one of the lead members of Respondent No.2) and Ernst & Young, who even today continue to be the advisors to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had formulated a financial package for revival in the year 2019. There is no explanation whatsoever forthcoming as to how in less than a year, the valuation of DHFL has depleted so drastically for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to proceed ahead with a Resolution Plan, which is not even remotely close to the value of DHFL as determined in 2019. 7. It is further submitted that how the entire CIRP is conducted, apart from being aimed at irretrievably prejudicing the Appellant, is also completely contrary to the public interest and against the very purpose and object not only of the Code but also of the provisions of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987. The facts and circumstances would only show a malafide conduct on the part of public officers/institutions in bringing about a situation whereby valuable assets and business of DHFL are disposed of at less than half ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition No. 4258/MB/2019. The Appellant has also sought relief of interim stay against the implementation of the approved Resolution Plan. 12. It is important to mention that the Resolution Plan was also challenged in other Company Appeals (AT) (Insolvency) No. 454, 455 and 750 of 2021. The said Company Appeals have been allowed, and the term in the Resolution Plan that permits the Successful Resolution Applicant to appropriate recoveries of avoidance applications was set aside. Accordingly, the Resolution Plan has been sent back to the COC for reconsideration on this aspect. 13. Since the Resolution Plan, which is under challenge in the present Appeal, is still under consideration before the COC, this Appeal has become infructuous in the circumstances. 14. In the present Appeal, the Appellant had challenged the approved Resolution Plan on the ground that COC ought to have considered the 2nd settlement proposal of the Appellant during the pendency of IA No. 449 of 2021. Based on the application of the promoter, the Adjudicating Authority had directed the COC to consider the 2nd settlement plan. The said Order was challenged in Company Appeal (AT) (insolvency) No. 370, 376-377 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
