9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compliance with the technical and commercial requirement of the RFRP and is also incompliance with the Code as well as the Regulations. The Resolution Applicant enclosed the compliance certificate in Form-H of the Schedule and complied the procedure as per law. This Tribunal is of the view that the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors cannot be interfered with by this Tribunal in absence of any illegality or infirmity or violation of any statutory provisions of law. This Tribunal is of the view that the plan is in accordance with law and do not find any legal infirmity or illegality in the Resolution Plan, which was rightly approved by the Adjudicating Authority. The Hon ble Supreme Court time and again held that the commer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeared for the Appellants submitted that the Appellants are aggrieved by the impugned order whereby the Learned Adjudicating Authority approved the Resolution Plan under Section 30(6) of the I B Code, 2016. 3. It is submitted that the Appellants are the Operational Creditors of the Corporate Debtor and the Adjudicating Authority initiated CIRP against the Corporate Debtor vide order dated 15.10.2018 in CP No. 941 of 2018 and M/s Vandana Garg appointed as Resolution Professional on 22.12.2018. The 1st Appellant filed its claim under Form-B before the Resolution Professional on 29.04.2019 and the amount claimed by the Appellant in CA (AT) Ins. 341 of 2021 is Rs. 2,46,61,500/- and the claim of the Appellant in CA (AT) Ins. 342 of 2021 Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith implementation of the Resolution Plan approved by the Tribunal in MA 1433/2019 in CP 941/2018 vide an order dated 20.07.2020. The said application filed by the 1st Respondent herein was allowed by the Learned NCLT vide its order dated 09.04.2021. It is submitted that the Appellants in both the Appeals received e-mail dated 26.07.2021 from the Resolution Professional of the 3rd Respondent whereby it was informed the Appellants to check the bank account details and claim settlement amount. The claim of the Appellant in Company Appeal No.341/2021 was Rs.2,85,45,693/- and the amount admitted as on 08.11.2019 by the claims team was Rs.56,59,876/- and the Plan provides a meagre amount of Rs.84,618/- as the settlement amount of the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring and heard the Appellant and reserved for passing orders on 14.06.2022. 8. It is an admitted fact that CIRP initiated against the Corporate Debtor by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Chennai) vide its order dated 15.10.2018 and the IRP was appointed on 22.12.2018. The Appellants in both the Appeals filed their claims respectively in Form-B before the Resolution Professional on 29.04.2019. After due compliance of law, the Resolution Professional filed an Application being MA 1433/2019 in CP 941/2018 under Section 30(6) of the I B Code, 2016 seeking the approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by the 1st Respondent herein. It appears that after deliberations with the Resolution Applicant finally the 1st Respondent herein became the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the manner as stated in para 27 of the impugned order. From the table, it is also seen that the claims of the Operational Creditors was Rs.175.13 Crores and the proposed payment made Rs.3 Crores. In para 29 of the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority stated as under: As per Clause 7A of Part-B of the Resolution Plan, the payment of Rs.3 Crores which is to be paid to the Operational Creditors as against their total claim of Rs. 175.13 Crores, will be paid within 60 days from the effective date . 11. The 1st Respondent herein filed an Application before the Adjudicating Authority in IA 858/2020 in CP 941/2018 praying the Adjudicating Authority to allow the revision of the Resolution Plan as regards the amended shareholding pat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 20.07.2020. 13. The Hon ble Supreme Court time and again held that the commercial wisdom of the CoC cannot be interfered with by the NCLT and NCLAT. Also, the recent judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1811-1812/2022 between Vallal RCK Vs. M/s Siva Industries and Holdings Limited and Others dated 03.06.2022, whereby and whereunder at para 27 observed as under: 27. This court has, time and again, emphasized the need for minimal judicial interference by the NCLAT and NCLT in the framework of IBC. We may refer to the recent observation of this Court made in the case of Arun Kumar Jagatramka vs Jindal Steel and Power Limited and Another (2021 7 SCC 474): 95. .However ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
