9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior Advocate For Mr. Avinash Krishnan Ravi, Advocate, For R2 JUDGMENT ( Virtual Mode ) [ Per : Shreesha Merla , Member ( Technical ) ] 1. The Appellant has preferred Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 326/2023, aggrieved by the Impugned Order dated 28/03/2023 in Intervention Application No. 7/2022 in IA No. 1344/2022 in C.P. (IB) No. 241(HDB)/2021, whereby the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench' has dismissed the Application, filed by the Appellant herein seeking to intervene in IA No. 1344/2022, filed by the first Respondent / Resolution Professional ("RP") of the Corporate Debtor for approval of the Resolution Plan. 2. Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 331/2021 is preferred by the Appellant challengin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , there is clear violation of Section 24 of the Code. The Claim of the Appellant was admitted at a very belated stage just prior to the 5th CoC Meeting and on receipt of the information, the Appellant had immediately taken the necessary steps. 6. It is the case of the Appellant that a major decision was taken in the 4th CoC Meeting excluding the Appellant and no publication for extension of time was issued nor was it published on the IBBI website. It is submitted that the RP admitted the Appellant's Claim on 13/09/2022, even though the Claim was submitted by the Appellant way back on 19/04/2022. As per advertisement dated 20/07/2022, the last date for submission of 'Expression of Interest' ("EOI") was 04/08/2022 and the last date for submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter gaining knowledge about the details of the Resolution Plan of the SRA, was not satisfied with the Plan submitted by the SRA as the Plan was covering only 4 % of the Operational Creditor's Claim and sought to offer a better Resolution Plan that the one that was already approved by the CoC. The 'Adjudicating Authority' has observed that the Application was per se not maintainable firstly for the reason that the CoC had already approved the Resolution Plan which he received pursuant to publication of Form - G. Intervention Application, I.P. No. 07/2022 in IA No. 1344/2022 was dismissed on the ground that the Code did not provide any rule to a third party including the Unsuccessful Resolution Application to intervene in an Application file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess to whether the Appellant has any vested right to file a Resolution Plan pursuant to the process in published Form - G. It is seen from the record that the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC and the 'Letter of Intent' ("LOI") was issued to the SRA on 09/11/2022. IA No. 1410/2022 was filed subsequently on 10/11/2022. IA No. 1314/2022 was filed by the RP seeking approval of the Resolution Plan on 11/11/2022. It is significant to mention that the Appellant sought to intervene in IA No. 1344/2022 by filing an Application only on 25/11/2022. It is also on record that Notice for the 7th CoC Meeting was sent to the Appellant on 01/11/2022 but the Appellant did not choose to attend the said Meeting. The contention of the Learned Counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority could be entertained as there is no vested right or fundamental right in the resolution applicant to have its resolution plan approved, and as no adjudication has yet taken place." 12. The Principal Bench, NCLAT vide Order dated 19/12/2022 in the matter of 'Kalinga Allied Industries India Private Limited Vs. Committee of Creditors (Bindal Sponnge Industries Limited)' in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 689/2021 has observed as follows: "8........In this case, the CoC sought fresh consideration for another Plan after completion of all timelines. It is pertinent to mention that these Judgements are prior to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Ebix Singapore Pvt. Ltd.' (Supra). It is the case of the Intervenors that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not consider another Plan of a third party who did not participate in the CIRP Proceedings. For all the ongoing reasons, this Tribunal is of the earnest view that once Plan is submitted for approval, it is binding between the CoC and the SRA, unless there is any material irregularity or is against the provisions of Section 30(2) of the Code the Adjudicating Authority cannot, in its limited jurisdiction, interfere." 13. It is clear from the aforenoted judgments that the Appellant does not have any vested right in submitting the Resolution Plan in the absence of filing one Plan pursuant to Form - G, and taking the right steps at the appropriate time, specifically keeping in view that the Appellant had attended the 5th CoC Meeting when the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
