9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty, based on their admitted claims, would have influenced the CIRP if they had been permitted to participate in the COC. After completion of the CIRP and after approval of the Resolution Plan, if any amount is allotted to related party financial or operational creditors, it would not impact the CIRP. Thus, it is clear that IBC treats related parties as a separate category for specified purposes, excluding from the CoC under Section 21 and disqualifying them from being Resolution Applicants under section 29A. However, the IBC does not treat Related Party as a separate class for any other purpose. Therefore, a rationale nexus must exist for any classification between the object sought to achieve the classification and sub-classification. Therefore, the Related Party financial or operational creditor cannot be discriminated against under the Resolution Plan, denying their right to get payments under the Resolution Plan only on being a Related Party. It is also made clear that by getting only payment under the Resolution Plan, related party creditors could in no way sabotage the CIRP. The increase in RP fees with retrospective effect can not be considered as CoC's prudent de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y other purpose. Therefore, a rationale nexus must exist for any classification between the object sought to achieve the classification and sub-classification. Therefore, Related Party Financial or Operational Creditor cannot be discriminated under the Resolution Plan only on being a Related Party. Thus, it is clear that IBC treats related parties as a separate category for specified purposes, excluding from the CoC under Section 21 and disqualifying them from being Resolution Applicants under Section 29A. However, the IBC does not treat Related Party as a separate class for any other purpose. Therefore, a rationale nexus must exist for any classification between the object sought to achieve the classification and sub-classification - the Related Party financial or operational creditor cannot be discriminated against under the Resolution Plan, denying their right to get payments under the resolution Plan only on being a Related Party. It is also made clear that by getting only payment under the Resolution Plan, related party creditors could in no way sabotage the CIRP. Thus, the approved Resolution Plan is in contravention of Section 30 (2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CoC, leaving the proposal unconsidered. The Appellant had preferred an application before the Adjudicating Authority, i.e. MA/13/CHE/2021 in IBA/1459/2019 for fair Valuation and to consider the promoters' proposal with the option to modify the same on the request of the members of the CoC. 4. The Appellant objected that the Valuation of the corporate debtor was done in utter violation of the statutory mandates, as a result of which, CoC was deceived into approving the Resolution Plan submitted by IInd Respondent, i.e. M.K. Rajagopalan (R-2), thereby allowing him to acquire the assets of the corporate debtor for a price less than 25% of the actual market value. 5. The promoter group of the corporate debtor consists of around 100 Non-Resident investors living in the United States of America, who as a group invested over US$ 22 million in foreign exchange in the corporate debtor. The corporate debtor had availed project loans to construct 'Le Meridian', 'Coimbatore', from a consortium of bankers led by Indian Bank. The business in this Tier 2 city did not materialise as per estimated projections. The financial performance of the Chennai Hotel also experie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ension funds and lifelong savings, and the Resolution Plan does not provide any payment for the shareholders. The promoters have not taken any dividend or benefit from their investment over 30 years. The corporate debtor had been repaying the loan regularly from 2000 until 31 March 2019. Therefore, the promoter group will incur a total investment loss if approved the Resolution Plan. 11. On behalf of the Appellant, it is submitted that there is a violation of section 88 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882. It is seen from the final list of prospective Resolution Applicants dated 26.09.2020, issued by the IRP, that a prospective resolution applicant, namely, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth , is ineligible on the ground that it is a charitable trust and it cannot run a profit-making entity. Furthermore, it is seen from the approved Resolution Plan that R-2 is the founder and Managing Trustee of the said 'Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth'. 12. However, the fact that Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth was a prospective Resolution Applicant and found ineligible was wholly suppressed from the CoC. Therefore, IInd Respondent being the Managing Trustee of Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth, has proceeded to submit the Resoluti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t proper due diligence and report the above statutory violation to CoC or the Adjudicating Authority. 16. The CoC was not adequately appraised of the actual value of the Corporate Debtor's assets to evaluate the Resolution Plan. The Valuer was based out of Tamil Nadu and had little knowledge of the prevailing real estate market conditions in Tamil Nadu. Moreover, the Valuer lacked adequate experience with the hospitality industry. As a result, only the core assets of the Corporate Debtor were valued, and the non-core assets have thus not been appropriately valued. In the 7th CoC meeting dated 29.12.2020, RP informs that the Valuation of non-core assets was being done and that the draft valuation figures will be available by 30.12.2020. However, the valuation summary was finalised on 02.12.2020 and shared with the former MD vide Email dated 26.12.2020. It is thus evident that the non-core assets have not been appropriately valued, and the RP has chosen not to explain the same to date. Therefore the Valuation of the non-core assets is not in compliance with Regulation 35(1)(a) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process of Corporate Person) Regul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the corporate debtor as a going concern. Accordingly, in addition to M/s. Deutsche Bank, a private investor, namely, Saveetha Institute of Medical Sciences, had come forward to extend a loan of Rs. Three hundred fifty crores to the Corporate Debtor have been duly informed to the CoC and R-1 by way of a letter dated 16.07.2021 and the proof for the source of funds like bank statements. Therefore, the investors are now ready and willing to invest more funds than stipulated under the Resolution Plan. Therefore, the interest of all the stakeholders can be protected, and the Corporate Debtor can also be preserved as a going concern. 22. The Appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank's case that the promoter/ directors of the Corporate Debtor should be privy to all details pertinent to the CIRP. However, the erstwhile Directors have not been shared the valuation reports to date. Non-sharing of information with erstwhile Directors was held to be a ground for setting aside of Resolution Plan in the Standard Chartered Bank's case [AIR 2019 SC 2477] 23. Appellant also relied on Dwarkadish Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.'s case; MA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re asset being 100 Crores. This was communicated to the member of CoC on 15.12.2020. 28. The contention of the Appellant regarding disqualification of the Resolution Applicant under Section 164(2)(b) and Section 88 of Indian Trust Act, 1882 is turned down as R1/IRP had satisfied himself based on documents available before him and based on materials and data available in the public domain that R2 was eligible to submit a Resolution Plan and that he was not disqualified from being a director. There was no material to show that R2 was hit by any provisions of Section 29A of the Code. The legal contentions raised by the Appellant based on the Companies (acceptance of deposits) Rules, 2014, the other provisions of Companies Act, 2013 and the Trust Act are factually and legally incorrect. 29. The Appellant's contention that there is a violation of Section 166(4) of Companies Act, 2013 is baseless; the Appellant is trying to misquote a particular clause in the Resolution Plan, which reads as under: 5.7 . The RA has plans to convert the Coimbatore hotel premises into medical hospital. The tentative estimate for necessary modifications are being worked out a. Ist Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t sent two reminders. In response to the 2nd reminder sent on 19.01.2021, R-1 replies that the Appellant cannot be inducted into the CoC as it is a related party. 36. The Appellant filed its objection to the Resolution Plan, filed two applications for its claims to be admitted by the R-1 and to be included in the CoC and to declare the Resolution Plan, if any approved by the CoC, without admitting Appellant's claim as a Financial Creditor, void and non-est in law. 37. In reply to the Application, the Appellant came to know that the claims were admitted as a financial creditor and an Operational Creditor. Still, the Resolution Plan does not allow any money to the Appellant as it is a related party. Accordingly, Appellant's applications were dismissed, and the Resolution Plan was approved under the common impugned Order. Appellant's Submissions 38. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that under Section 61(3) of Code, a Resolution Plan can be challenged if it is violative of law, the RP has not followed the due procedure, or have not been provided for in the Resolution Plan. In the present case, all three conditions are attracted. 39. The Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Debtor were situated in Tamil Nadu. It is learnt that these Valuers did not physically verify the properties. Instead, three different valuations were done. Without prejudice, the Appellant submits that the Valuation made in the Resolution Plan is very low even compared to the valuations obtained from the valuers. The total Resolution Plan value is ₹ 423 Crores, while their liquidation value is ₹ 565 Crores. While the commercial wisdom of the CoC cannot be questioned, the process by which they undertook the decision and the fact that maximisation of asset value was not the objective of the process is grounds for challenging the Resolution Plan. 43. The RP must look into all claims and decide before calling for Resolution Plans. In its Application dated 03.08.2020, the Appellant had specifically submitted its claims as Operational Creditor and Financial Creditor and claimed it had a right to be a part of the CoC. Despite submitting its claims for a sum of ₹ 4,81,62,175/-in Form C and a sum of ₹ 1,94,14,024/-in Form B on 03.08.2020, neither the IRP nor the RP communicated to the Appellant seeking clarification regarding the claims. But no communication ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was caused to the Appellant. The Appellant is a related party in Section 5(24), I B Code. Section 21(2), second proviso I B Code will not apply to the Appellant who did not become a related party solely on conversion or substitution of debt into equity shares . The Appellant never pleaded or proved such a case before the Adjudicating Authority. 49. R-1 contends that the Code does not mandatorily require Resolution Plans for payment to a related party. Merely because the Code does not prohibit the payment to related parties cannot lead to the conclusion that payment to related parties is mandatory in a Resolution Plan. There is no discrimination in the payment scheme to the various class of creditors as proposed under the approved Resolution Plan. The Resolution Plan provides for all the stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor except related parties of the Corporate Debtor. IInd Respondents Submissions/ (Successful Resolution Applicant/R-2) 50. Successful Resolution Applicant/ R-2 submits that the entire purpose of filing the present Appeal is to delay the Resolution Process. The Adjudicatory Authority vide its impugned judgment dated 15.07.2021 had categorically observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany Appeal (AT) (Ins) 218 of 2021 Factual Background 55. The facts of the present Appeal are similar to the above set of appeals, therefore not reiterated herein for the sake of convenience. 56. The Appellant is an NRI shareholder and erstwhile Director of the Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, the Appellant submits that the Appellant is filling in respect of the rights of about 100 NRI shareholders of the Corporate Debtor, whose rights have been affected and whose shareholding has been extinguished and nullified in gross contravention of principles of fairness and reasonableness, which are sine qua non, for any Resolution Plan to be validly approved by a court of law, as per Section 31 of I B Code. Appellant's Submissions 57. It is submitted that IRP and the CoC failed to note that R-2, a managing trustee of a trust which was found ineligible to act as a Resolution Applicant, has indirectly done what the Trust was directly barred from doing. 58. It is further submitted that R-2 has misled the CoC that he did not have any conflict of interest, thereby playing fraud of the CoC to have his Resolution Plan approved. On the date of giving the Expression of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s further argued that with regard to averments on the ineligibility of the Successful Resolution Applicant, this respondent/ the then IRP had satisfied himself on the basis of the materials and data available in the public domain that R-2 was eligible to submit a Resolution Plan and that he was not disqualified from being a director. There was no material evidence to show that R-2 was hit by any of the provisions of Section 29A of the Code. IInd Respondents Submissions /(Successful Resolution Applicant/ R-2) 65. The IInd Respondent argues that the Appellant has no locus standi on the grounds that the Appellant herein chose not to participate in the CoC meetings or ever raised any objections before the CoC. Further, the Appellant has also not filed any application before the Adjudicating Authority objecting to the Resolution Plan of R-2. Altogether new issues and grounds to challenge the Resolution Plan are sought to be raised before this Appellate Tribunal for the first time by the Appellant. 66. The multiple proceedings and cases have been initiated at the behest of the erstwhile promotors of the Corporate Debtor about the current Resolution Plan. The Standing Committ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their individual capacity. Therefore, Section 88, the Indian Trust Act, would not affect the Approval of the Resolution Plan of Respondent No. 2. Further, as per the definition of conflict of interest as per Para 1.1 of RFRP, the conflict shall arise only when the Resolution Applicant is found to be in a position to have access to information about or influence the Resolution Plan of another Resolution Applicant. Admittedly, the Trust was declared ineligible even before it could submit a Resolution Plan. 73. It is further contended that Respondent No. 2's directorship, as per the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website, Government of India still shows as active compliant. As long as a Director is an active compliant under the Companies Act, Section 29A(e), IBC, 2016 would not apply. 74. It is also contended by R-2 that the argument that the Resolution plan by Respondent No.2 is hit by Section 166(4), Companies Act since he is the Director of MGM Health Care and is planning to convert the hotel into hospital is untenable as Starting a new line of business or a separate company to carry on a similar business, does not in any way result in a conflict of interest when both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) The Valuation Process conducted by the IRP and the RP is contrary to various statutory provisions and, consequently, has directly impaired the commercial wisdom of the Committee Creditors. (b) The two Valuers Appointed by the IRP did not physically verify the Corporate Debtor's assets. Regulation 35 (1) (a) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 mandates explicitly that the estimate of Fair Value and Liquidation Value be computed after physical verification of the assets of the Corporate Debtor. (c) The Non-Core assets have been valued only by One Valuer, which is against Regulation 35 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, which mandates two registered valuers. (d) The Valuation Report was never circulated either to the Appellant or to other members of the Committee of Creditors. Mere production of naked values without the detailed adjunct report would materially handicap the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors. (e) The provisions of Rule 8 of The Companies Act (Registered Valuers and Valuat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce with the Code and these regulations, the Resolution professional shall provide the fair value and the liquidation value to every member of the committee in electronic form, on receiving an undertaking from the member to the effect that such member shall maintain confidentiality of the fair value and the liquidation value and shall not use such values to cause an undue gain or undue loss to itself or any other person and comply with the requirements under sub-section (2) of section 29: (3) The Resolution professional and registered valuers shall maintain confidentiality of the fair value and the liquidation value. The Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules. 2017 8. Conduct of Valuation.- (1) The registered Valuer shall, while conducting a valuation, comply with the valuation standards as notified or modified under rule 18: Provided that until the valuation standards are notified or modified by the Central Government, a valuer shall make valuations as per- (a) internationally accepted valuation standards, (b) valuation standards adopted by any registered valuers organisation. (2) The registered Valuer may obtain inputs for his val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that the value of the Non-Core assets was not significant. (k) However, in lieu of the detailed valuation report, no member of the CoC or the Appellant herein has any idea as to what was categorised as a Non-Core Asset by the Resolution Professional or what its value could be. It is an admitted fact that Valuation as per the Code requires two registered valuers, and it also revealed that the same had not been done in the instant case. This blatant statutory violation cannot be brushed aside and given a quietus by alleging that their value was insignificant. This is especially concerning in a scenario where the detailed valuation report has not been provided to any party concerned. (l) A valuation consisting of mere naked values without a detailed report is not a valid valuation for the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It is a settled proposition that the Valuation exercise is conducted to facilitate the CoC in its decision-making process. Therefore, the existence of a valid and accurate valuation report is a sine qua non for the COC to exercise its commercial wisdom. A natural sequitur to the aforesaid would be that a detailed valuation report is necessary for the CoC to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of the assets since the valuers were Delhi based and were not aware of the existing prevailing real estate market conditions and (b) Alleged Non-consideration of Section 12A proposal of the Appellant. 2. So far as the (a) is concerned, there is no documentary evidence to support the contention of the Appellant that the Valuation of ₹ 1600 crores. This Respondent has conducted the whole process under the provisions of the Code and the Regulations. The Resolution Plan was approved after following due process of law, after approval from the Committee of Creditors under its commercial wisdom. Respondent adverted to the observations of this Appellate Tribunal in Paragraph 15, under the head 'Discussions and Findings', in Company Appeal No. 19/2021, wherein it is held that:- 15. The Appellant's contentions about the Valuation of the Corporate Debtor of ₹ 1600 crores are unsupported by any evidence. The fact remains that the Resolution Plan amount has arrived after following the due procedure prescribed under the Code and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. 3. The aforesaid judgment has attained finality. 4. The Appellant is not sure of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only Core Assets of the Corporate Debtor were valued. The Appellant is now trying to take advantage of this Respondent's non-inclusion of Expression of some of the Non-Core Assets in the Agenda Item No.2 of 6th CoC. ii. Furthermore, the Valuation procedure under Regulation 35 has been followed, perusing Agenda Item No. A 4 of the 2nd CoC would reveal that the IRP had followed the process mentioned in the CIRP Regulations about the appointment of registered valuers. The said agenda item also discussed how the Valuation is proposed to be carried out, including a visit to the properties to be valued. iii. The Appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court about the submission of a copy of the valuation report. The reliance placed on the judgment is ill-founded, and in the said judgment, the Supreme Court had examined the issue as to whether Resolution Plan needs to be given to the Promoter. The said judgment does not deal with the valuation report. The Regulation itself does not provide for sharing a copy of the Valuer's report even with the CoC and only enabled the Resolution Professional to share the numbers after getting confidentiality undertakin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of the valuers as the appointed valuers are Delhi-based and are not privy to the area/properties of Tamil Nadu and might also a struggle to visit the collective sites of the corporate debtor located at Tamil Nadu given that travel restrains in the current period----- the competency of the process valuation might decrease. The COC members also requested the chairman to circulate the profiles in a comparative chart. The members had difficulty being faced evaluating the profile/experience of the appointed valuers with respect to the hospitality industry. 81. It is further evident from the minutes of the COC meetings that the two valuers appointed by the IRP differs significantly and therefore warranted the appointment of a third valuer. Furthermore, the RP has also admitted in the 6th COC meeting that only the Core Assets of the Corporate Debtor were valued, and the Non-Core Assets has not been appropriately valued. Therefore, the 3rd Valuer was also supposed to value the Non-Core Assets. Still, the RP, as evident from the minutes of the 6th meeting of the Committee of Creditors, made it clear that another valuer needs to be appointed to value the Company's non-core a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in the paragraphs 66, 81, 90 91 of the Impugned Order, which is reproduced below for ready reference; 66. In relation to the sharing of the valuation report, it was submitted by the Learned Senior Counsel that Regulation 35 of the IBBI (IRPCP) Regulations 2016 contemplates sharing of only fair value and liquidation value on obtaining confidentiality undertaking from the members of the CoC and even though the Promoter is not a member of the CoC, the values were shared with the Promoter and that there are no requirements under the law for the RP to share the valuation report. 81. Thus, it is clear that the RP has arrived at a Fair Value and the Liquidation Value based on the average of all the three valuers and the same has been done in accordance with Regulation 35 of the IBBI (IRPCP) Regulations 2016. Further, the valuation certificate dated September 2019 relied on by the promoter / suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor would be of no relevance as the same was not done in accordance with the Regulations framed under the IBC, 2016. Also, the RP who is in charge of the affairs of the Company Debtor once the CIRP has been triggered in relation to the Corporate Debt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Resolution Applicant. Hence, this raises a suspicion as to whether that these Applications as filed by the objectors are motivated. 91. Thus, the objections as raised by the objectors in relation to the procedural irregularities in relation to the conduct of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process are not so grave in order to defeat the Resolution Plan as filed by the Resolution Professional. Hence, for the said reasons, the objections as raised by the objectors in respect of the same are overruled. Accordingly, IA/181/CHE/2021, IA/183/CHE/2021, IA/192/CHE/2021, IA/172/CHE/2021 and IA/291/CHE/2021 stand dismissed. (verbatim copy) 86. Based on the above discussion, it is apparent that the two valuers appointed by IRP did not physically verify the corporate debtor's assets despite that Regulation 35 (1) (a) of the CIRP Regulations mandates explicitly that the estimator fair value and liquidation value shall be computed after physical verification of the assets of the Corporate Debtor. It is further revealed that the valuation report was never circulated either to the Appellant or to other members of the COC. Mere production of naked values without the det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-compliance of Regulation 36A of IBC has explicitly been taken by the Appellant in its Affidavit objecting to the Plan before the Ld. Tribunal. The impugned order itself records that the plea of non-compliance of regulation 36A was raised. 93. Non-publication of Form-G violates Circular No. IP (CIRP)/006/2018 dated 23.02.2018 issued by the IBBI, which provides the designated website for publication of Form-G , i.e. [email protected]. Failure to advertise as mandated to ensure that more Resolution Applicants could come forward directly impacts the maximization of asset value. 94. Despite violations above about the publication of Form-G , the Learned Tribunal has approved the Resolution Plan. On pages 142-144 of Vol. of Appeal, sets out a list of provisions that have been complied with. Regulation 36A does not even find a mention in this. 95. Appellant has taken specific pleas regarding non-publication of Form-G in the Appeal. 96. In response to the irregularity mentioned above, the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the Learned Adjudicating Authority vide its impugned judgement dated 15 July 2021 has dealt with the issue of procedural irreg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the registered office and principal office, if any, of the corporate debtor and any other location where in the opinion of the resolution professional, the corporate debtor conducts material business operations; (ii) on the website, if any, of the corporate debtor; (iii) on the website, if any, designated by the Board for the purpose; and (iv) in any other manner as may be decided by the committee. (3) The Form G in the Schedule shall- (a) state where the detailed invitation for expression of interest can be downloaded or obtained from, as the case may be; and (b) provide the last date for submission of expression of interest which shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issue of detailed invitation. (4) The detailed invitation referred to in sub-regulation (3) shall- (a) specify the criteria for prospective resolution applicants, as approved by the committee in accordance with clause (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 25; (b) state the ineligibility norms under Section 29-A to the extent applicable for prospective resolution applicants; (c) provide such basic information about the corporate debtor as may be r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the prospective resolution applicant complies with- (a) the provisions of clause (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 25; (b) the applicable provisions of Section 29-A, and (c) other requirements, as specified in the invitation for expression of interest. (9) The resolution professional may seek any clarification or additional information or document from the prospective resolution applicant for conducting due diligence under sub-regulation (8). (10) The resolution professional shall issue a provisional list of eligible prospective resolution applicants within ten days of the last date for submission of expression of interest to the committee and to all prospective resolution applicants who submitted the expression of interest. (11) Any objection to inclusion or exclusion of a prospective resolution applicant in the provisional list referred to in sub-regulation (10) may be made with supporting documents within five days from the date of issue of the provisional list. (12) On considering the objections received under sub-regulation (11), the resolution professional shall issue the final list of prospective resolution applicants within ten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was hit by any provisions of section 29 A of the Code. The contentions raised by the Appellant based on the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014, the other provisions of Companies Act, 2013 and the trust act are factually and legally incorrect. 103. In response to the allegations of the Appellant, the Successful Resolution Applicant SRA submits that; a. The aforesaid argument of violation of Sec. 88 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 was never raised by the Appellant before the CoC and the Ld. They are Adjudicating Authority. Further, the Appellant has no locus to raise the issue of conflict of interest. b. Respondent No.2 and Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth (trust) had submitted their Expression of Interest in their individual capacity. c. Sec. 88, the Indian Trust Act would not affect the Approval of the Resolution Plan of Respondent No. 2. Further, as per the definition of conflict of interest as per Para 1.1 of RFRP, the conflict shall arise only when the resolution applicant is found to be in a position to have access to information about or influence the Resolution Plan of another resolution applicant. Admittedly, the Trust was declared ineligible even before sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mely 'Balaji Vidyapeeth', which was never disclosed to the COC and has been deliberately suppressed. The IRP/ Resolution Professional should have informed the CoC that the 2nd Respondent had presented the Resolution Plan by competing with the said Trust. He has used the very same Trust to support his credentials and creditworthiness in the Resolution Plan. The relevant portions of the Resolution Plan are extracted hereunder for ready reference: 3.5. Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth: Mr M.K. Rajagopalan is the founder and managing trustee of Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth... 3.10. Financial Snapshot The entities under the leadership of Mr. M.K. Rajagopalan have been growing rapidly while ensuring quality of service to nation and public at large... These entities have achieved turnover of ₹ 417.94 Crores in FY 2016-2017; ₹ 500.03 Crores in FY 2017-2018; ₹ 679.23 Crores in FY 2018-2019 and ₹ 860.59 Crores (estimated) for FY 2019-2020. The above growth is ample testimony of the credentials of the RA as a competent business leader and his capability to manage and turn around various diverse businesses. 106. Therefore, it is incorrect to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (e) does not contravene any of the provisions of the law for the time being in force. . Section 61. Appeals and Appellate Authority. (3) An appeal against an order approving a resolution plan under section 31 may be filed on the following grounds, namely: -- (i) the approved resolution plan is in contravention of the provisions of any law for the time being in force;. 109. The argument of the 2nd Respondent that the Trust had submitted their EOIs independently and both of them were aware that the other was submitting their EOIs is purely mischievous. Admittedly, the 2nd Respondent is the Managing Director of the said Trust, and the fact remains that two EOIs were submitted by the 2nd Respondent, one for himself and the other on behalf of the Trust. 110. However, the said facts have been suppressed from the CoC, and the CoC did not have an occasion to consider that the 2nd Respondent had submitted two EOIs. Therefore, it is also false to claim that the 2nd Respondent had complied with the provisions of the RFRP and the IBC. The 2nd Respondent suppressed material facts and gave false declarations about his ineligibility and the conflict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted the Resolution Plan fraudulently. Unfortunately, IRP and RP( R-1) failed to conduct proper due diligence and report the above statutory violation to CoC or the Adjudicating Authority. 116. In response to the above, the Ld Senior Counsel for the IInd Respondent submits that; a) The aforesaid argument of Sec. 164(2)(b),2 Companies Act, 2013 was never raised by the Appellant before the CoC and the Ld. Adjudicatory Authority and even on the grounds of Appeal. Further, the Appellant herein has no locus to probe into such implications. b) Sec. 73 of Companies Act, 2013 (which came into force on 01.04.2014) states that no company shall invite, accept, renew deposits from the public except in the manner provided under this chapter on or after commencement of this Act. Therefore, when read along with Sec. 1(3),* Companies Act, any deposit received before 01.04.2014 does not partake the character of the deposit referred to in Sec. 73 read with Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 2014. Thus, this argument must fail. c) The above-mentioned contention ignores the Ministry of Corporate Affairs circular dated 30.03.2015, which exempts the amounts received from director ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been made by the Adjudicating Authority under this Code; c. has executed (a guarantee) in favour of a creditor in respect of a corporate debtor against which an application for insolvency resolution made by such creditor has been admitted under this Code [and such guarantee has been invoked by the creditor and remains unpaid in full or part; d. ......... e. ......... e) It is undeniable that neither any of the aforesaid events have actually happened with respect to Respondent No. 2 nor any competent authority under the relevant laws with respect to the aforesaid matters has passed any order, direction or decision declaring, convicting, disqualifying or prohibiting Respondent No. 2 in any manner. Sec. 29-A would, if at all, come into operation upon after the competent Authority has done any of the aforesaid against Respondent No. 2. f) There is no other provision in the IBC with regard to the ineligibility of a Resolution Applicant. Further, it is clear that Sec. 29A(e), IBC categorically provides for persons to be ineligible as resolution applicants. Therefore, the Act should have already happened and been declared by the competent Authority to be ineligible. Neith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ademy Private Limited for the years from 2011 to 2018. 121. The 2nd Respondent has suppressed the above facts and has submitted the Resolution Plan by giving a false declaration that he does not suffer from any disqualification. Now, the 2nd Respondent has claimed that ₹ 12,03,000/- was paid by himself to the said M/s. International Aviation Academy Private Limited and that him being a member/ Director of the said Company, such payment would not amount to 'deposit' as per Rule 2(1)(c)(viii) of The Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 and General Circular No. 5 dated 30.03.2015, issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. 122. The 2nd Respondent has chosen not to file any document to support the above contention and has failed to discharge his burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 123. Suppose it is considered that the sum of ₹ 12,03,000/- was paid by the 2nd Respondent to the said M/s. International Aviation Academy Private Limited, the Application of Rule 2(1)(c)(viii) of The Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 is subject to the conditions stipulated therein, which have not been complied with. Therefore, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rendered in Dinesh Gupta vs Vikram Bajaj Liquidator M/s Best Foods Ltd. 128. In response to the above objection of the Appellant, the Resolution Professional in its Revised Written Submission wherein stated that; A perusal of the 9th minutes of the COC would reveal that the COC had approved the resolution plan and the RA was requested to revise the same in line with section 53 of the Code read with section 30 (2). The commercial decision with regard to Approval of the Plan was taken by the COC, which is evident from the minutes of 9th COC. 129. The Revised Resolution Plan dated 25 January, 2021, of which copy is filed along with the convenience compilation by the Appellant, reveals that the 9th CoC meeting took place on Friday, 22 January 2021. The Minutes of 9th CoC contains the following agenda; Agenda Item No. A.1.; To discuss and put to the vote the Resolution Plan submitted by M K Rajagopalan. A revised resolution plan was approved with 87.39% of voting share of financial creditors present and voted in the meeting. Since there was dissent by some of the financial creditors, the Resolution professional will send back the Resolution Plan to the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for consideration by the COC in the 9th meeting held on 22 January 2021 and the said resolution was approved with a thumping majority of 87.39%. 134. The Adjudicating Authority failed to notice that the Resolution Plan was not approved in the 9th COC meeting. Therefore, based on the resolution of the 9th COC meeting, the Resolution Plan was to be sent back to the Resolution Applicant for further revision. After that, the final Revised Resolution Plan was made on 25 January 2021, but it was never presented before the COC for approval. 135. After revision , the revised plan is never put to the vote. Instead, it is filed to NCLT directly, without any approval from the COC on the revised Resolution Plan. Sections 30(2), 30(4), 30(6) and Section 31 mandate that only a plan as approved by the COC can be presented to the NCLT for its approval under Section 31. Such kind of procedural failure amounts to material irregularity and goes to the root of the matter, making the plan void and non-est in law, as it is trite law that where the law permits a thing to be done in a particular manner if the same is not done in that manner, the same is non-est in the eyes of the law. Non- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FA. Therefore, the Resolution Professional cannot disregard the proposal for the conduct of a meeting of the CoC on such an untenable and superficial ground. Nevertheless, the Promoters are still willing to present their proposal under Section 12A, under which all financial creditors would be paid upfront in an expedited manner. This would accrue to the benefit of all members of the Committee of Creditors and ensure that the value of the Corporate Debtor is maximized. Therefore, the objectives of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code would be fulfilled. 2. Since the proposal of the Appellant was not even discussed in the COC meeting, the Appellant had preferred an application before the Adjudicating Authority in MA/13/CHE/2021 in IBA/1459/2021 for fair valuation and to consider the proposal dated 08.03.2021 or such other proposals made by the Promoters with the option to modify the same on the request of the members of the COC. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent had also preferred an application in IA/150/CHE/2021 in IBA/1459/2021 inter-alia seeking approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by the 2nd Respondent. Despite glaring malafides in the CIRP. 3. Appellants further conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by R-1 dated 09.09.2021) and therefore, is no more available to the Appellant for reliance. 137. However, the Appellants, in response to the 2nd Respondent s submissions, stated that R-2 does not have any locus to question the efforts of the Appellant taken towards the one-time settlement of the creditors. 138. In response to the 12A application Resolution Professional in its affidavit, states that the CIRP of the corporate debtor was initiated on an application by the TFCIL pursuant to order dated 5 May 2020. There is used public money which is at its stake by way of claims of several secured and unsecured Financial Creditors of about 390 crores besides the claim of Operational Creditor of ₹ 8.52 crores. The CIRP of the Corporate Debtor has paved way for resolution and recovery of public money. The conduct of the erstwhile promoter of the corporate debtor by pushing a communication in the guise of proposal under Section 12 A that too at a belated stage when Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant was being put to vote, is nothing but an attempt to derail of a statutory process. In this context, it is relevant to note that the Hon ble NCLT wide its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, implies, and other stakeholders, it will be settled after discussion with them and out of the generation of funds from the company's operation. In the circumstances, the appellant requested to accept the settlement so that the 12 A application may be submitted before the NCLT. The term sheet of the Deutsche Bank was also annexed with the settlement offer. 142. It is also necessary to mention that when the appeal was filed, then on the 1st date of admission of the Appeal, i.e. 30 July 2021, the learned counsel for the appellant made a statement in the court that the appellant would deposit ₹ 450 crores. Therefore, he requires 2 or 3 days. Since the total Resolution Plans amount was 423 crores, the Appellant contended that assets of the corporate debtor are worth over rupees for 1600 crores. It is also contended that the 12 A application was pending, but it was not considered and voted. Considering all the situations and bona fides of the appellant, this Appellate Tribunal granted an interim stay on implementing the impugned order. 143. Based on the pleadings of the parties, it appears that a settlement offer was made, and a 12 A application was to be submitted aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere has been a material irregularity in the exercise of the powers by the RP, and the Appellant who is also an Operational Creditor has not been provided for. 146. Resolution Plan is Discriminatory i. The appellant contends that the Resolution Plan discriminates against the Appellant by providing no payment to it on the ground that it is a Related Party, even though the debt is admitted. The IBC does not permit discriminatory plans to be approved. Binani Industries (Supra) was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed. ii. Reliance on JR Agro Industries P. Ld. v. Swadisht Oils Pvt. Ld., ]Company Appeal No. 59 of 2018, dated 24.07.2018 (@Pg. 10-60 of R2's Additional Compilation of Judgments] is misplaced. JR Agro (Supra) was challenged before the Hon'ble NCLAT in Jya Finance and Investment Company Limited vs J.R. Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1001 and the resolution plan therein was modified, which was free from any discrimination. iii. After Binani Industries (Supra), the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2019, was enacted. The Bill before the Rajya Sabha contained the Statement of Objects and Reasons, which a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vii. Further, in the present case, the minutes of the CoC Meetings clearly show that no discussion whatsoever has taken place on the reasons for exclusion of Related Party from the payments to be made under the Resolution Plan. On the contrary, even in the 7th and 8th COC Meetings, a certain amount is set apart for Related Parties. However, in the final plan approved in the next meeting, no amount is paid to the Related Party, and no discussion in the CoC for the same is recorded. viii. The Appellant contends that there was no application of mind, let alone the commercial wisdom of the CoC while approving the resolution plan regarding the exclusion of the claims of Related Parties. However, in Essar Steel (Supra) @ para 73, the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically held that the decision of the Committee must reflect the fact that it has taken into account maximizing the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor and the fact that it has adequately balanced the interests of all stakeholders. Further, in para 73, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that the Adjudicating Authority can look into this and see if the necessary parameters have been taken into account while arriving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s admission of the claim is concerned, it is seen from the resolution plan that the claim of the applicant has been admitted by the RP both in the capacity as an operational creditor and financial creditor; however the applicant was classified as Related Party of the corporate debtor. However, during the course of submissions, the learned senior counsel Mr Satish Parasaran, submitted that there is discrimination in relation to the distribution of the amount by the resolution applicant. It is seen that no such pleading has been made in the application in relation to the discrimination of the amount being made to the related parties in the resolution plan, and the present application has been filed only with a prayer to declare the applicant company as not a related party of the corporate debtor. In so far as the admission of the claim, the said prayer has become infructuous since the claim of the applicant company was admitted by the RP, and the same is also reflected in the resolution plan. (verbatim copy) 149. Under the IBC, 2016, there is no mandate to treat unrelated and related parties equally. On the contrary, the IBC and Regulations thereunder specifically treat & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l creditors and treated at par with equity shareholders are partners under waterfall principle under section 53(1)(h) of the Code. Thus, we hold that the debt of ₹ 36.6643 crore of Jaya Finance Investment Co. Ltd., which is admittedly a related party of the corporate debtor should fall in the category of equity shareholders are partners as provided in section 53(1)(h) of the Code. Their claim will be treated at par with equity shareholders are partners, who are other unsecured creditors they rank below the operational creditors of the corporate debtor. (verbatim copy emphasis supplied) 153. The NCLT in JR Agro had equated a related party with equity shareholders or partners as provided under Section 53(1)(h) of the Code and ranked lower in level than the obligation due to unrelated Financial Creditors. Accordingly, it further held that non-allocation of the fund by the Resolution Applicant, in the case in hand, to the related party of the Corporate Debtor does not contravene the waterfall mechanism as provided in Section 53(1)(h) of the Code, 2016. 154. The NCLAT in Facor Alloys was pleased to hold that an approved resolution plan could deal with a cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Senior Counsel for the IInd Respondent, to bolster his argument adverted to the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 12,25,27,36,41 42 of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Pratap Technocrats (P) Ltd. v. Reliance Infratel Ltd. (Monitoring Committee), (2021) 10 SCC 623, wherein it is observed that observe that; 12. NCLAT by its judgment dated 4-1-2021 [Pratap Technocrats (P) Ltd. v. Reliance Infratel Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 384] rejected the appeal. NCLAT noted that there was no substance in the grievance that the operational creditors had been unfairly or inequitably treated in regard to the distribution of funds. As a matter of fact, operational creditors (other than related parties and statutory creditors) were allocated 19.62% of the upfront payment of ₹ 3720 crores, while the financial creditors were paid only an amount of 10.32% of the upfront payment. The approved resolution plan, NCLAT observed, ensures restructuring and revival of the corporate debtor. 25. The resolution plan was approved by the CoC, in compliance with the provisions of IBC. The jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority under Section 31(1) is to determine wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge Bench of the Court, speaking through R.F. Nariman, J., observed : (Swiss Ribbons case [Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17] , SCC p. 69, para 51) 51. Most importantly, financial creditors are, from the very beginning, involved with assessing the viability of the corporate debtor. They can, and therefore do, engage in restructuring of the loan as well as reorganisation of the corporate debtor's business when there is financial stress, which are things operational creditors do not and cannot do. Thus, preserving the corporate debtor as a going concern, while ensuring maximum recovery for all creditors being the objective of the Code, financial creditors are clearly different from operational creditors and therefore, there is obviously an intelligible differentia between the two which has a direct relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Code. 42. In Essar Steel India Ltd. [Essar Steel (India) Ltd. (CoC) v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531: (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 443], this Court held that the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide makes it clear beyond any doubt that equitable treatment is only of similarly situated creditors [ Available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of approved resolution plan discriminates between related party unsecured Financial Creditor and other unsecured Financial Creditors, likewise related party operational creditors and other operational creditors. The appellant argues that its claim ought to be treated equally to an unrelated Operational/ Financial Creditor given the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 163. IInd Respondent further relied on the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Vijay Kumar Jain v. Standard Chartered Bank, (2019) 20 SCC 455 wherein it is observed that: 23. The argument on behalf of the Committee of Creditors based on the proviso to Section 21(2) is also misconceived. The proviso to Section 21(2) clarifies that a Director who is also a financial creditor who is a related party of the corporate debtor, shall not have any right of representation, participation, or voting in a meeting of the Committee of Creditors. Directors, simpliciter, are not the subject-matter of the proviso to Section 21(2), but only Directors who are related parties of the corporate debtor. It is only such persons who do not have any right of representation, participation, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be appointed to a committee. Creditors who may not be appointed to a creditor committee would include related persons and others who for any reason might not be impartial. The insolvency law should specify whether or not a creditor's claim must be admitted before the creditor is entitled to be appointed to a committee. In interpreting the legislation, which represents a Parliamentary effort to bring about structural changes in the resolution of corporate insolvencies, the effort of the court must be to aid the fulfilment of the objects of the IBC. 165. In the case of Jya Finance and Investment Company Ltd. vs J.R. Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd ., 2018 SCC OnLine NCLAT 100, the Appellate Tribunals finding is given as under; 1. The Appellant Jya Finance and Investment Company Ltd. , one of the Financial Creditor has challenged judgment dated 24th July, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Allahabad Bench whereby and whereunder the resolution plan submitted by the 3rd Respondent - Rajasthan Liquor Ltd. has not been accepted by the Adjudicating Authority with following observations:- By approving the Resolution Plan, we c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orate debtor cannot misuse the provisions of Sec. 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to defraud their creditors. List the matter on 31st July, 2018 for further consideration. 2. The appeal was preferred by the Appellant on the ground that the Adjudicating Authority has failed to consider that the 3rd Respondent met all the requirements of Section 30(2) of I B Code r/w Regulation 38 and 39 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations. However, such submission was not accepted by the Appellate Tribunal when the matter was earlier heard. 3. In Binani Industries Limited v. Bank of Baroda appeals in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 82 of 2018, etc. this Appellate Tribunal held that no discrimination can be made against same set of creditors on one or other ground. 4. For the reason aforesaid, the 3rd Respondent - Rajasthan Liquor Ltd. sought time to submit modified resolution plan and by our order dated 20th September, 2018 we allowed the 3rd Respondent to modify the same. 5. The Resolution Professional has filed a report enclosing a copy of the modified resolution plan submitted by the 3rd Respondent. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cluding priority and value of the security interest of the secured creditors; and (iii) such other requirements as may be specified by India's Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board. In other words, the decision to approve a resolution plan is entrusted to the CoC with the rider that Plan has taken care of the priority given u/s 53(1) of the Code. In the instant case, the approved plan does not conform to the order of priority provided u/s 53 (1) of the Code. It provides nil value to related party Financial and Operational Creditors. Sec 53 of the Code is given as under for ready reference; 53. Distribution of assets.-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law enacted by the Parliament or any State Legislature for the time being in force, the proceeds from the sale of the liquidation assets shall be distributed in the following order of priority and within such period and in such manner as may be specified, namely- (a) the insolvency resolution process costs and the liquidation costs paid in full; (b) the following debts which shall rank equally between and among the following- (i) workmen's dues for the period of twenty-four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... solvency is correct. Section 30(2)(b) of the Code refers to Section 53, not in the context of priority of payment of creditors, but only to provide for a minimum payment to operational creditors. However, this again does not in any manner limit the Committee of Creditors from classifying creditors as financial or operational and as secured or unsecured. Full freedom and discretion has been given, as has been seen hereinabove, to, which they would otherwise be able to realise outside the process of the Code, thereby stymying the corporate resolution process itself. 169. In the case-law cited above, the Hon ble Supreme Court has clarified that the CoC power is not limited to classifying creditors as Financial or Operational and secured or unsecured. 170. It is pertinent to mention that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Phoenix Arc v Spade Fin Services, (2021) 3 SCC 475. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that those entities in the CoC, who are related parties, can often negatively affect the insolvency process. It further went on to hold that the objects and purposes of the Code are best served when external creditors drive the CIRP to ensure that related parties of the Corporate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id ab initio. 175. Further, Adjudicating Authority observation that Regulation 35 of the IBBI (IRPCP) Regulations 2016 contemplates sharing of only fair value and liquidation value figures on obtaining confidentiality undertaking from the members of the CoC is incorrect. Finding that Since the Promoter is not a member of the CoC, the values were shared with the Promoter and that there are no requirements under the law for the RP to share the valuation report is also erroneous. 176. A valuation consisting of mere naked values without a detailed report is not valid. It is a settled proposition that the Valuation exercise is conducted to facilitate the CoC's decision-making process. Therefore, the existence of a valid and accurate valuation report is a sine qua non for the COC to exercise its commercial wisdom. A natural sequitur to those above would be that a detailed valuation report is necessary for the CoC to exercise its commercial wisdom objectively. 177. The Adjudicating Authority s observation that a statutory provision regulating a matter of practice or procedure will generally be read as a directory and not mandatory is erroneous. Compliance with statutory requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , excluding from the CoC under Section 21 and disqualifying them from being Resolution Applicants under Section 29A. However, the IBC does not treat Related Party as a separate class for any other purpose. Therefore, a rationale nexus must exist for any classification between the object sought to achieve the classification and sub-classification. 184. Therefore, the Related Party financial or operational creditor cannot be discriminated against under the Resolution Plan, denying their right to get payments under the resolution Plan only on being a Related Party. It is also made clear that by getting only payment under the Resolution Plan, related party creditors could in no way sabotage the CIRP. 185. Based on the above discussion, it is clear that the approved Resolution Plan is in contravention of Section 30 (2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, which contravenes the provision of law ORDER Company Appeals (AT)(CH) (Ins.) Nos. 164, 176, 218 219 of 2021 are allowed. The Common order passed in Miscellaneous Applications, IA/150/CHE/2021, MA/13/CHE/2021, MA/18/CHE/2021, MA/48/CHE/2021, IA/181/CHE/2021, IA/183/CHE/2021, IA/192/CHE/2021, IA/217/CHE/2021, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
