9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the appellant under Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short 'Code') read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016(rules) against the liquidator of the Corporate Debtor that the Appellant, being a shareholder, submitted a scheme of compromise of the Corporate Debtor under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short 'the act') read with Regulation 2B of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (Regulation) but the same was rejected by the liquidator. Shorn of unnecessary details, the appellant submitted a compromise scheme to the liquidator for restructuring of the debt of the corporate debtor which is stated to have been rejected by the Stakeholders Consultation Committee (SCC) by 97% vote because the sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notarized affidavit under sec 29A. Mr. Arun Kumar Agarwal has sent few supporting documents on 24th July 2023 without notarized affidavit under sec 29A and another Applicant i.e Mr. Sanjeev Mitla has sent few supporting documents on 27th July 2023 @9.19 PM. Mr. Sanjeev Mitla has not submitted proposal and any original documents till date. Both the Applicants have not submitted the EMD of 15% by way of DD in the name Corporate Debtor (requested by the Liquidator) towards as per the Sub Regulation 3 of Regulation 2B of the INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA (LIQUIDATION PROCESS) REGULATIONS, 2016 dated 25th July 2019 and also prove the real intention towards their proposals. Mr. Arun Kumar Agarwal and his wife presented before SCC membe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Applicant, Ld. Counsel firstly distinguished it on facts. He pointed out that in that case, value of the proposed compromise scheme was of Rs. 45.21 crores compared to the reserve price of Rs. 45 crores set by SCC, as seen from para 4 of that order. In the present case, he continued, that the compromise scheme proposed by the applicant is of only Rs. 90 crores in comparison to the reserve price of Rs. 155 crores set by the SCC for auction of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. He then referred to para 27 of the order of Hon'ble NCLAT, where it was held that "...the Scheme under Section 230... ought to have consent of not less than 75% of the Secured Creditors, and an affidavit to that effect ought to accompany with the scheme" and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Interest in terms of sale notice dated 06.08.2023. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of ". It is thus submitted that already decision has been taken by the SCC by not less than 97% vote share that the proposal submitted by the appellant is not viable and has been rejected. However, Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that though the proposal has been rejected by more than 75% vote share by the SCC but the fact remains that the proposal made by the Appellant was never put before the SCC in his presence. This fact is not denied by the Respondent after taking instructions from the liquidator. In view thereof, we are of the considered opinion that it would be just an expedient if the proposed scheme propounded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
