9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of exemption, the applicant had offered to deposit the necessary EMD, the present case essentially can be seen as the one seeking for condoning of delay in depositing the Earnest Money. When the CoC had decided not to entertain the plan submitted by the applicant, it is not understood as to why the same was considered and commented on in an off handed manner by the CoC in the 7th meeting. Keeping in mind the main objective of the Code which is the maximization of the value of the Corporate Debtor vis- -vis the facts and circumstances of the case - matter remanded back to CoC and RP to consider the resolution plan submitted by the applicant subject to depositing of required EMD of Rs.One Crore within two days from the date of order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uing discussions, the applicant made clear that he being an Ex. Promoter of the Corporate Debtor which is a MSME is exempted from the submission of the EMD along with the proposal. However, this submission of the applicant was not taken into consideration. Subsequently, the RP vide email dated 16th June, 2022 stated that all the resolution plans would be placed before the CoC for further consideration and that the resolution of the applicant may not be considered as the applicant has not submitted EMD amount of Rs. One Crore. Copies of the email exchanged have been placed at Annexure A-13 of the application. 5. It is averred that 6th meeting of CoC was held on June 22, 2022 and discussions were held on the resolution plan submitted by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of an MSME attracts interest primarily from an promoter of an MSME and may not be of interest to other resolution applicants. 8. Further relying on the judgement of the NCLAT in the case of Saravana Global Holdings, in a subsequent decision in the case of Mr. C. Raja John versus Mr. R.Raghavendran Others passed in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 207 of 2021, the Hon ble NCLAT held (in paragraphs 21 to 28) that by the amendment to section 240 A of the Code of 2016, the legislature expressed its intention to encourage the promoters of MSME to file resolution plans which were viable, feasible and fulfilled the other criteria laid down by the Code. 9. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner s name had been published in the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applicant to deposit the earnest money., and as a via media, he also enquired whether he could take a 3rd party route for deposition of the EMD, so that his plan could be considered. The applicant states that all through he had understanding that his resolution plan is receiving consideration without EMD as he had been participating in various meetings of CoC and participating in the associated processes. 12. It is also mentioned on page 22 of the petition at para 25 that two resolution plans which have been received were far less in value than the plan submitted by the applicant . Submissions by Ld. Counsel for RP 13. It has been contended by the Ld. Counsel that the MSME Amendment that was introduced in IBC namely Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Mr.Damani provided necessary EMD is deposited and the matter can be again put up before the CoC for consideration subject to condonation of the delay in filing the resolution plan. 17. The Ld. Counsel for the RP was however agreeable that the plan can be put before the CoC for which the delay in the submission of the Resolution plan would need to be condoned, the plan of the Applicant has to be legally compliant and supported by valid EMD and the same would then be considered by COC. In any event, the steps taken so far including consideration by COC of Plans by other two Resolution Applicants cannot be disturbed. Analysis and findings 18. We have gone through the pleadings and heard the Ld. Counsel for the RP and the Ld. Seni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to sell the Howrah unit for making payment to the creditors, whereas plan submitted by others are found to be feasible and viable which stipulated towards complete revival of the corporate debtor . 20. When the CoC had decided not to entertain the plan submitted by the applicant, it is not understood as to why the same was considered and commented on in an off handed manner by the CoC in the 7th meeting. 21. Further the applicant has stated in the application at page 22 para 25 that the resolution plan submitted by the applicant is far better and more conducive to the revival and rehabilitation of the Corporate Debtor and is also valued at Rs.15 Crores as compare to other two plans which are Rs.10.51 Crores and Rs. 9.0 Crores res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
