9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication, grant ad-interim ex-parte stay on the FORM-G as published by the Respondent No. 1 on 23.02.2022 and directing the Resolution Professional to not to place any other Resolution Plan before the Committee of Creditors; e. Issue direction against the Resolution Professional for not conducting the CIRP in terms of the provisions of the Code and take appropriate action; 2. The facts that lead to filing of present application are as follows: a. It is submitted that CIRP of the corporate debtor was initiated by this adjudicating authority vide order dated 04.03.2021 and respondent no. 1 was appointed as IRP vide same order. It is stated that on 07.05.2021, Form G was published for inviting the expression of interest (Eol) from Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs) and in response to the same applicant submitted its Eol. On 16.06.2021, Resolution Professional issued final list of PRAs. As per the terms and revised last date for submission of resolution plan, the applicant submitted its resolution plan on 27.07.2021 i.e., last date for submission of resolution plan. b. It is further submitted that the applicant was informed vide email dated 25.08.2021 that its resolution pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l list of eligible Resolution Applicants is issued, and after considering objections, if any, received from Committee of Creditors and prospective Resolution Applicants under Regulation 36A (11), a final list of eligible prospective Resolution Applicants is issued under Regulation 36(A)(I2) of CIRP Regulations, 2016. The final list of prospective Resolution Applicants was issued by Resolution professional which included the name of Applicant and accordingly, Applicant submitted its Resolution Plan in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of Corporate Debtor. f. It is further submitted that after issuing the list of PRAs, the resolution Professional sought further details vide email dated 01.08.2021 for determining the eligibility of applicant section 29A of Code, which resolution professional is not empowered to do after issuance of list of PRAs. It is stated that resolution professional despite being at fault started targeting the applicant for not providing alleged information and raised frivolous issues regarding alleged misrepresentation. g. The Applicant relied on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited & Anr. v. Union of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the question that is to be asked when a debenture holder or fixed deposit holder prefers a Section 7 application under the Code will be asked in the case of allottees of real estate developers - is a debt due in fact or in law? Thus, allottees, being individual financial creditors like debenture holders and fixed deposit holders and classified as such, show that they within the larger class of financial creditors, there being no infraction of Article 14 on this score." Hence, prayed that in view of above facts and circumstances, the application may be allowed. 3. The Respondent No. 1 filed its reply to the present application and denied all the averments of the applicant, raised objection regarding locus of applicant and argued on following points: a. It is submitted that on careful analysis of scenarios mentioned in Regulation 39(3B) illustrations, the Regulation does not provide a case where two resolution plans are rejected by the CoC, i.e., they do not receive 66% votes, and both such resolution plans receive equal and identical votes. In the instant case, both Resolution Plans were rejected by the CoC and both Resolution Plans were rejected by equal voting, i.e., 87.45%. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction by SDMC (South Delhi Municipal Corporation) taken against the PG Advertising Private Limited, related party of the applicant, the RP enquired the same with the applicant. It is stated that the action emanated from cancellation of a contract awarded through a tender floated by SDMC for allotment of advertising rights for flagpoles on 24.05.2011. The said contract was cancelled by SDMC on 08.02.2012. Consequently, the SDMC blacklisted PG Advertising Private Limited on the ground of non-payment of outstanding dues to the tune of Rs. 2,19,90,723/-. PG Advertising Private Limited challenged the said blacklisting before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court through W.P. (C) No. 8234/2015 claiming that since arbitration proceedings were pending on the issue of the allotment of tender and its cancellation between PG Advertising Private Limited and SDMC, action taken by SDMC was arbitrary. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, through Order dated 28.08.2015, held that the blacklist by SDMC would not be given effect to till the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings pending between the panics. It is further held that the parties would then be at liberty to pursue the remedies available in pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
