9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by order dated 14.02.2020 and subsequent order passed on the I.A. of the Resolution Professional. Distribution of the amount to the Financial Creditors as per the decision of the CoC cannot be permitted to be challenged. - Judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd. vs. Amit Metaliks Ltd. Anr. [ 2021 (6) TMI 684 - SUPREME COURT ] followed. Appeal dimissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 584 of 2020 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 68 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2022 - [ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson And [ Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. Gautam Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Ms. Prapti Singh, Mr. Parthivi Ah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitting Section 7 application. The Andhra Bank and the Appellant were two Financial Creditors claiming Rs.90,33,20,878/- and Rs.46,26,59,125/- respectively. Publication was made calling for Expression of Interest on 16.10.2018 in pursuance of which Resolution Applicant- M/s Shiva Ferric Pvt. Ltd. submitted Resolution Plan. Andhra Bank has voting share of 66.13% whereas the Appellant had voting share of 33.87%. The Resolution Plan was approved by CoC on 07.05.2019. The Appellant filed objection to the Resolution Plan. By order dated 31.01.2020, the objections of the Appellant were rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. By a subsequent order dated 14.02.2020, the Resolution Plan was approved. The Appellant aggrieved by the order dated 14. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal. The provision of limitation Act became application by Amendment dated 0606.2018 and Hon ble Supreme Court in B. K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Parag Gupta Associates, (2019) 11 SCC 63 , has laid down that limitation for filing Section 7 application is only three years. The Appellant was a Secured Creditor, who had taken possession of the assets in the year 2013 and the liquidation value of the assets mortgaged with the Appellant is 16.33 Crores, hence, the Appellant was entitled to be paid liquidation value of its secured assets. The Corporate Debtor was not a going concern and approval of Resolution Plan as a going concern is wholly illegal. It is submitted that the objections raised by the Appellant to the Resolution Plan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record. 8. First submission of learned counsel for the Appellant is that the application under Section 7 filed by the Andhra Bank is barred by time. It is to be noted that in the objections which was filed by the Appellant to the Resolution Plan only issue raised by the Appellant was with regard to apportionment of amount to the dissenting Financial Creditor which was repelled by the Adjudicating Authority on 31.01.2020. At no point of time any issue regrading limitation of Section 7 application has been raised. The order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 14.08.2018 admitting Section 7 application filed by Andhra Bank was challenged by the Appellant by filing a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy No(s). 22842/2020 which petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed on the I.A. of the Resolution Professional. 12. Now coming to the submission of learned counsel for the Appellant that objections raised by the Appellant have not been adequately considered by the Adjudicating Authority, suffice it to say that the objection was filed by the Appellant raising ground that Resolution Plan is not in accordance with the Code which objection has been rejected on 31.01.2020 by the Adjudicating Authority, which order has never been challenged. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has also noticed certain objection raised by the Appellant Financial Creditor and the Adjudicating Authority has returned a finding that there has been equitable treatment between both the similarly situated se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or action taken pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof would also be nullities. In the instant case, as the High Court did not have any jurisdiction to record the compromise for the reasons stated hereinbefore and in particular as no writ was required to be issued having regard to the fact that public law remedy could not have been resorted to, the impugned orders must be held to be illegal and without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside. All orders and actions taken pursuant to or in furtherance thereof must also be declared wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently are liable to be set aside. They are declared as such. 14. The submission of the Appellant that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
