9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andling of the liquidation process, were under scrutiny. The Appellate Tribunal noted allegations of flawed valuation, especially regarding the property in Rayagada, and the failure to include this property in the Asset Memorandum. Valuation of the Rayagada Property: A significant issue was the zero valuation ascribed to the Rayagada property by the liquidator, which was initially valued at a much higher rate. The Appellate Tribunal highlighted the importance of this property in the liquidation process and the need for its proper valuation. Section 230 Scheme Proponent Rights: The Appellate Tribunal discussed the rights of a scheme proponent under Section 230 of the Companies Act. It was noted that a bidder in the liquidation process does not have a vested right to have their resolution plan considered or approved. Stakeholders' Consultation Committee's Role: The role and decisions of the Stakeholders Consultation Committee were also a point of contention. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the approval of the secured creditors and consultation with stakeholders were essential in the process. Applicability of IBC Regulations: The Appellate Tribunal emphas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aluation Report by Sugumar (pg. 637) 18.04.2019 Plant Machinery valuation by Jayaraman (Pg. 642) Plant Machinery valuation by Santha Kumar (Pg. 643) 3. It is represented that the appointment of these valuers , was acknowledged in the third CoC meeting (vide pg. 719 of Appellant s Appeal Paper Book, para 3a) and slight modification with respect to plant and machinery valuation , was submitted by Santha Kumar was suggested by the Committee of Creditors , considering the closure of factories (vide para 3(b)(ii). 4. Added further, it is projected on the side of the Appellant, that during the Fourth Committee of Creditors , meeting, the Resolution Professional , had explained issues , pertaining to the Rayagada Land , and he was directed to secure a legal opinion by the Committee of Creditors . 5. It is the stand of the Appellant/Company that resting upon the aforesaid, legal opinion, was secured from Advocate Mr. Nrushing Nath Panda whereby, it was mentioned that the Land in question is in OLR proceedings and as such, it was not marketable and it could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant, is that the Rayagada Property , was included in the audited financial statement dated 31.03.2020 and the value of the said property in the valuation was changed to nil, based on the direction of the Committee of Creditors . 12. Besides this, the property was considered as Liquidation Estate but valued as nil, based on legal opinion and the direction of the Committee of Creditors . As such, the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal had mentioned that the Rayagada Assets , were not included in Liquidation Estate being misconceived and the failure of appreciating of what is meant by the Liquidation Estate . 13. The stand of the Appellant is, that the value of the Rayagada Property was not changed, ever since the Liquidation was initiated, as it was valued , nil during CIRP proceeding itself and there are no documents to suggest that the Corporate Debtor had Title over the property and only, there are revenue records, which do not confer Title i.e. a valid title in law. 14. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant relies upon the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tata Consultancy Services V Vishal Ghusulal Jain, 2022, 2 SCC 583 wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he scheme of compromise as per Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 and on behalf of the Appellant, a reference is made to the scheme of compromise as per Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 and specifically to the companies (Compromise, Arrangement and Amalgamation) Rules, 2016 particularly Rule 3(1), Rule 6(3)(v)(c) with explanation, and Rule 9. Also that the liquidator despite envisaged under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Liquidator also complied with the Regulation 35 of the I B Code, 2016. 20. The contention of the Appellant is that in respect of Fresh valuation Liquidator would have appointed valuers, within seven days of commencement of Liquidation Process . In the instant case, according to the Appellant, the Liquidator had adopted the valuation of CIRP Process as per Regulation 35(1) of IBBI (Liquidation process) regulation and that the time had passed and the impact of COVID was to be considered a revised valuation was obtained by him. In this connection, on behalf of the Appellant a reference is made to Regulation 35 (2) which clearly mentions that when the valuation was not covered by regulation 35 (1) the Liquidator can order fresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor in Liquidation with a claim to an extent of Rs.571.50 crores due and recoverable from the liquidation process holding a total voting share of 98.68%. 27. The Learned Counsel for R-1 to R-6 points out that pursuant to the Corporate Debtor being order to be liquidated by the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal, the Respondent No. 7/Liquidator had called for an invitation of expression of interest for proposing a scheme for compromise or arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Called and referred to as scheme ) pursuant to which, the Appellant/ M/s Kineta Global Ltd., was declared the H1 Bidder by the Liquidator/Respondent No. 7, as against the requirements of Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. 28. According to the Respondents Nos 1 to 6, the 7th Respondent/Liquidator, in the meanwhile had conducted a Fresh valuation of the Assets of the Corporate Debtor and for the reasons best known to him, had excluded a key Asset of the Corporate Debtor in Rayagada, Orissa State , with a market value of over Rs. 1,000 Crores, as mentioned by the 7th Respondent/ Liquidator and had assigned it with a Nil valuation. Also, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dator on the Assets of the CD, was not in accordance with the procedure established under Regulation 35(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. (v) That consequently, the Respondents sought for a direction to set aside the improper process adopted by the Respondent No. 7/Liquidator for valuation of the Assets of the Corporate Debtor , amongst other reliefs. 31. The Learned Counsel for R-1 to R-6 bring to the notice of this Tribunal, that IA/ 256/IB/2021 was filed by R-1 to R-6, seeking to intervene raised their objections in the Section 230 Application of the Companies Act, 2013, filed by the 7th Respondent/Liquidator in CA/861/2021 and these application were allowed on 17.11.2021 by the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal and in terms of Paragraph 46 of the order, directions were issued to the 7th Respondent/Liquidator to carry out a Fresh valuation and thereafter call for Fresh scheme , as per Section 230 of the Companies, Act, 2013. 32. It comes to be known that during a pendency of the instant Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 302 of 2022 the Corporate Debtor had filed WP (C) No. 4490 of 2015 before the Hon ble Oriss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the pleadings, the Liquidator has procured only one report on the plant and machinery and another report on the land and building, which is in gross derogation of the procedure contemplated under the Regulations. (ii) Further, the said valuation done was without (including a Prime Asset of the Corporate Debtor , in Rayagada, Orissa State. (iii) That additionally, the Respondent No.7/Liquidator had also shared these Draft Valuation Report to the Potential Resolution Applicants , including the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 8 to 9 herein. 37. It is the submission of R- 1 to R-6 side, that the conclusion arrived at Paragraph 40 of the impugned order by the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal that the 7th Respondent/Liquidator had not complied with the procedure as required under the Regulations. 38. In addition, there was a conflict as well as between the Two Reports , which were shared, in the initial report provided on the Land and Building, the valuer had assessed value of Rayagada lands to be Rs. 1087.90 crores. Later, based on the information furnished by the 7th respondent/ Liquidator and on the basis of opinion furnished by the Advocate , he arrived at a con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022 passed in WP No. 4490 of 2015, unerringly points out that in terms of the order passed, in the aforesaid writ petition that compensation is to be provide as which was confirmed, later by the liquidator/ Respondent No. 7 through its email 16.03.2022, which would imply that the valuation ought to be conducted a fresh and fresh schemes , to be called for. Indeed, as per the impugned order at Paragraph 33 it was clearly recorded that the 7th Respondent/ Liquidator, while submitting the Asset Memorandum on 21.09.2020, had not included the said Asset, as part of the Asset Memorandum and had arrived at value of Rs. 217.52 crores. 42. The plea taken on behalf of R-1 to 6, is that the Liquidator/Respondent No. 7 had circulated the valuation reports of the Corporate Debtor, which includes confidential information, to the Respondent No. 7 to 9, who are the potential resolution applicants. 43. Furthermore, the Valuation reports submitted by the Respondent No. 7/Liquidator, must be kept as an extremely confidential document and any leakage of such information of the Report would lead to adverse consequences. Considering, the fact that it is also illegal and against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstance, the Tribunal holds that the advertisement inviting Expression of Interest itself was defective and that there was breach of confidentiality in as much as the liquidation value appears to have been leaked out. These findings should have taken the Appellate Tribunal to the point of setting aside the entire process and directing the Resolution Professional to start the process all over again from the stage of issue of a fresh advertisement. The NCLAT did not do so. In the operative portion, NCLAT merely remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority with a direction to send back the Resolution Plan to the Committee of Creditors to resubmit the plan after taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court. 38. ..The question of breach of confidentiality and leakage of confidential information can easily be tested on the touchstone of the benefit that accrued to the party who got the information. In the case on hand, no benefit accrued to the SRA. 48. The Learned Counsel for R-1 to 6 refers to the judgement of this Tribunal in the matter of Bank of Maharashtra Ors. V. Videocon Industries Ltd. Ors. (vide Comp. App. (AT)(Ins.) No. 503, 505, 529, 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for R-1 to 6 refers to the order passed by the Hon ble High Court of Orissa in WP (C) No. 4490/2015 wherein the order was passed that the Corporate Debtor has a right to compensation, over the ceiling surplus of lands at Rayagada Property to an extent of 506.690 acres. 52. According to the Learned Counsel for R-1 to 6 side, the relevant portion of the order passed by the Hon ble High Court of Orissa in WP (C) No. 4490/2015 runs as under:- 5 ..The Petitioner -Company is entitled to the amount in respect of ceiling surplus land to an extent of Ac. 506.690 decimal. 7. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that since ceiling surplus land has already been determined, immediate steps should be taken by the authorities under the Act to compute the amount in respect of ceiling surplus land to an extent of Act. 506.690 decimal in terms of Section 47 of the Act and Rules framed thereunder and make the payment at an early date, if not paid in the meantime. 8. The writ petition is therefore disposed of without interfering with the impugned orders under Annexures -7, 8 and 9 directing the authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.) No. 957 of 2021), for the proposition that the Section 230(2) Procedure under the Companies Act, 2013 should be complied with, provided it is not in derogation of any other law, including the I B Code, 2016. 59. The Learned Counsel for R-1 to 6 points out that the object of the I B Code, 2016 is for the maximisation of the value of the Assets of the Corporate Debtor, which is paramount and that all steps are to be taken to revive the Company as per decisions in Maharashtra Seamless Limited V. Padmanabhan Venkatesh and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4242 of 2019, 2020 SCC Online SC 67; Binani Industries Ltd. V. Bank of Baroda Another (CA (AT)(Ins.) 82/2018 Others; Lal Mohammad and Ors. Vs. SU KAM Power System Ltd. and Ors. (29.04.2019 NCLAT) : MANU/NL/0177/2019; K Kuppusamy V. State Bank of India and Ors. (08.08.2019) NCLAT : MANU/NL/0365/2019; Kshitiz Gupta V. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Ors. (02.12.2019 NCLAT) : MANU/NL/0591; R.Vijay Kumar and Ors. vs. Kasi Vishwanathan and Ors. (05.04.2019 NCLAT) : MANU/NL/0128/2019. 60. The Learned Counsel for R-1 to 6 emphatically points out that the instant Appeal does not hold water, as the Rayagada Prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... occasions, and all the interested parties, including that of the Appellant, who was represented by the Counsel was present and at no point of time, chose to object to the Application filed by the Respondents and finally, the impugned order came to be passed by allowing the Applications. 65. The Learned Counsel for R-1 to 6 points out that when the valuation itself, is fundamentally flawed , then, the reasons for the delay in valuation will be an irrelevant one and it will not in any way overcome the wrongful actions of the Liquidator . 66. The Learned Counsel for R-1 to 6, contends that the impugned order at paragraph 33 had clearly recorded that the Asset Memorandum furnished by the Liquidator , on 21.09.2020 had not included the property of the Corporate Debtor in Raygada and that he had arrived at a realisable value of Rs. 217.52 crores . However, the Liquidator before the Adjudicating Authority took a contra stand that the Assets in Raygada do form part of the Asset Memorandum . As such, the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal had rightly concluded that the said property, which was excluded by the Liquidator due to Rs. zero valuation ascribed, is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant as an H1 proponent, without the concurrence of SCC/ Secured Lenders and he moved an application before the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal for an appropriate direction to consider the alleged scheme in violation of the process document. 8th Respondent s contentions 73. According to the 8th Respondent it made a payment of Rs. one lakh on 24.07.2020 and submitted its xpression of Interest and the 1st Respondent/Bank acknowledged the receipt of payment on 30.07.2020. Also that the 1st Respondent/Bank advanced the deadline to submit the scheme proposal from 25.09.2020 to 15.08.2020. That apart, the 1st Respondent/Bank, also advanced the time line for payment of earnest money deposit of Rs.2 crores from 25.09.2020 to 15.08.2020. Moreover the 1st Respondent had submitted the Information Memorandum , valuation Reports, and the provisional financial statement for the year ended 31.03.2008 by email dated 01.08.2020. On 03.08.2020, the answering respondent was eligible and was shortlisted for submitting scheme proposal . 74. The Learned counsel for the 8th Respondent submits that due to an increase number of Covid cases in August, 2020 and the Lock ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the consideration by the Stakeholder Committee . In the meanwhile, R2 to R7 before considering the scheme filed an IA 255/IB/2021 among other things, seeking a direction to the 1 st Respondent/Bank to take steps, to include the property at Rayagada, Orissa and update the Asset Memorandum, as per Regulation 34 of the IBBI(Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. 79. According to the 8th Respondent, the Liquidator had shortlisted the candidate, who are prospective bidder for the purpose of submitting the proposed scheme and the 8th Respondent is one of them. The 8th Respondent continues to remain as an interested in the Corporate Debtor and its Assets. In fact the Liquidator during the pendency of Appeal, had disqualified the 8th Respondent by citing Section 29A of the Code. The Adjudicating Authority by an order dated 12.02.2021 had directed the Liquidator to conduct fresh negotiations between R2 to R7 and R8. 80. The Learned Counsel for the 8th Respondent brings it to the notice of this Tribunal that it has assailed the disqualification made the by liquidator in IA 120/2021 and the same was Heard and Reserved for orders by the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal through an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iquidation value which will act as a guide to Stakeholders in taking a decision on the proposed scheme, to be submitted by the bidder. 87. The Learned counsel for 8th Respondent prays for an opportunity being granted to 8th Respondent by issuance of directions to the Liquidator, to participate in the Bid, with a view to enable the 8th Respondent to submit scheme in respect of the assets of the corporate debtor. Also that the liquidator is in possession of the EMD of the 8th Respondent and hence the 8th Respondent, may be permitted to submit its proposal. In any event, the instant Appeal, preferred by the Appellant is not maintainable in Law and on Facts . In other respects, the 8th Respondent adopts the arguments of Learned counsel for R2 to R6. Appraisal 88. Before the Adjudicating Authority / NCLT, Chennai Bench the Petitioners / IDBI Bank Ltd. and 5 others had projected an IA 255/IB/2021 in IA 71/2021 in IA No. 819/IB/2020 and IA 10/IB/2021 in CP/1307/IB/2018 (under Section 60(5) of the I B Code, Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016) and sought for the undermentioned reliefs:- (i) To direct the 1st Respondent/Liquidator to take necessary steps and include, as part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n or before 25.08.2020. A revised valuation report was sought for by the 1st Respondent / Liquidator, with a view to reflect the financial position of the Corporate Debtor before the Committee of Creditors which was deliberated before the 1st meeting that took place on 26.08.2020. Before this, on 03.07.2020, an expression of interest was invited by the 1st Respondent / Liquidator from the interested Applicants to submit schemes of arrangement on the basis of the liquidation value arrived at by the revised valuation report for its revival. Later there were 9 Applicants who submitted a scheme by making a non-refundable deposit of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as application fee. 92. In the second COC meeting, the four Applicants out of the nine who submitted their proposal scheme made their presentation, on their proposal before the stakeholders and they were subsequently asked by the stakeholders, to revise their respective schemes. Indeed, the liquidator filed CA 816/CAA/2020 in CP/1307/IB/2018 to which all the secured creditors had objected due to infirmities in the proposed application, which were brought to the attention of the liquidator by way of several e.mails. 93. When the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken forward with R2 and R3 or R4, if found eligible as directed by this Tribunal dated 12.2.2021, the petitioners in IA 255/IB/2021 in CP/1307/IB/2018 submit that the said negotiations would not yield much result, considering the fact any proposal presented by the R2 and 3 or R4, if found eligible, would be on the basis of imprecise valuation presented by the 1st Respondent/Liquidator and may not be feasible for the petitioners to accept. Also, this process would accordingly not result in producing and realising the best valuation of the assets of the Corporate Debtor and resultantly, would be detrimental to the interests of all the stakeholders including the IDBI Bank Ltd. (Applicant) and that of the Corporate Debtor as well. In the event of reliefs sought for in IA 255/IB/2021 in CP/1307/IB/2018 are not granted, it will finally result in delaying and frustrating the resolution process of the Corporate Debtor, besides leading to incurring of unnecessary cost and expenditure. The pleas of Erstwhile Liquidator / 1st Respondent of M/s. Jeypore Sugar Company Ltd. 97. According to the erstwhile Liquidator of 1st Respondent / M/s. Jeypore Sugar Company Ltd., it was the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y other manner has induced other person to believe and act upon such a representation, neither he or those representing can in a subsequent Court proceedings deny the truth . 102. It is projected by the 1st Respondent / erstwhile Liquidator that the Joint Lenders Forum lead by the Petitioner / IDBI Bank in their e.mail expressed their intention to exercise the option of selling the assets, secured by them u/s 52 of the Code, for exercising this option. The secured creditors must conduct fair valuation of theirs as per Section 52 of the I B Code within 90 days. However, till date even after 360 days the IDBI Bank / Petitioner had not complied with the Regulations. 103. The 1st Respondent / erstwhile liquidator before the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal had prayed for the dismissal of the IA 255 of 2021. 104. It is the stand of the 1st Respondent / erstwhile liquidator that the liquidation value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor situated at Raygada Asset (782 acres) was initially determined that Rs. 763.186 crores and accordingly the liquidation value was decided. Subsequently, at the instance / direction of the Committee of Creditors, a legal opinion was secured, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot even on final Valuation Report . 109. According to the 1st Respondent / erstwhile Liquidator, having ordered for two valuations to take the average of them as liquidation value, the grievance of the IDBI Bank that the procedure followed was an irregular one, had become an infructuous one and further the contention that two valuations were not taken into consideration to arrive at Liquidation value was not tenable any more, in as much the average taken was based on two independent values given by the two sets of the independent valuers . 110. The erstwhile liquidator in IA 255/2021 took a stand that for discharging the functions as per Section 35(1) of the I B Code, 2016 he was not under an obligation either to consult or abide by the suggestions of the stakeholders. As a matter of fact, the only obligation u/s 35(2) of the I B Code, 2016 is that the liquidator, in case he consults any stakeholder he shall make that record available to other stakeholders, but he is not under any obligation to oblige the suggestion given by the Stakeholders. 111. The erstwhile liquidator had taken a stand that in respect of the scheme, the IDBI/Bank cannot call itself as an Aggrieved , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f stakeholders consultation committee and it has no Locus to contest the instant Appeal . 118. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Jain Vs Standard Charted Bank 2019 20 SCC 455 wherein in respect of the interpretation of Regulation 21 it was held that there was no specific provision which states not to share the valuation report and in fact all the concerned persons should be given an access to the documents, which will be crucial for deciding the work of the Corporate Debtor . 119. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant relies on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Shiv Shakti Coop Housing Society, Nagpur Vs Swaraj Developers and Other (2003) 6 SCC 659 wherein it was held that an Appeal is an continuation of the original proceedings and the provisions applied at the time of institution are considered to be operative even in respect of the Appeals and this is because of the fact there is a vested right in the litigant to avail the remedy of an Appeal. 120. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out that the decision in Essar Steel vs. Satish Kumar Gupta reported in 2020 8 SCC 531 inappli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Co. Ltd., that, the JS.Co. Ltd., is in possession of lands as per the R.O.R. to an extent of Ac. 784.90 in 13 numbers of Mouza (Revenue villages). But they are in physical possession of Ac. 565.75. They have already surrendered the lands to the State of Odisha to an extent of Ac. 117.96 and others (Rayagada People) have occupied to an extent of Ac. 101.19. There are numbers of cases relating to the lands of J.S.Co. Ltd., from 1974. At present situation no Sugar Company and ferrow-manganese factory is running on the land of JS Co. Ltd., and no lands are used for raising of sugarcane for JS Co. Ltd., except few members to watch and ward the waste materials of J.S. Co. Ltd. Nobody are working for J.S. Co. (Sugar Factory) and ferrow manganese factory. There is a dispute between the State J.S. Co. Ltd., for no cause. So it can be sorted out, if J.S. Co. Ltd. will take a decision to mitigate the litigation. I have gone through all the documents of the J.S. Co. Ltd., and found that except few lands there are recorded in Rayagada Nagar all are agricultural land. In view of that these lands cannot be enforceable under SARFAESI Act. The lands are in dispute with the Govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rently stands as Rs. 1.66 crore. 125. The Erstwhile Liquidator, who had filed the Asset Memorandum on 21.09.2020, had not included the Raygada Property Assets but arrived at a realisable value of 217.52 crores. 126. The valuation of the Raygada Property with a market value of more than Rs. 1000 crore as mentioned by the Liquidator / 7th Respondent was valued at Rs. Zero by the erstwhile liquidator without adhering to the mandatory requirement of Regulation 35 of IBBI (liquidation process) Regulations, 2016. Even the second value report secured by the 7th Respondent / liquidator does not exhibit the compliance of the Regulations because of the fact that in the instant case the liquidator / 7th Respondent had only obtained one Report on the plant and machinery and another report on the land and building which is in negation of the procedure as specified under the Regulations. In short, the said valuation was made, without including a vital asset of the Corporate Debtor. 127. The Erstwhile Liquidator had shared the Draft Valuation Report to the Resolution Applicants including the Appellant and Respondent No. 8 to 9. 128. In reality, the valuer in the initial repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idator is quite contrary to the Regulation 34 (4) of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process Regulations), in the considered opinion of this Tribunal. 134. One cannot remain in oblivion of a prime fact that the aforesaid Regulations read in conjunction with Regulation 21 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals Regulations, 2016) unerringly points out that an Insolvency Professional is to ensure that information to be of confidentiality in character pertaining to the Insolvency Resolution Process, liquidation or bankruptcy process and the same is to be maintained at all points of time. 135. It is to be remembered that the Hon ble High Court of Orissa in WP 4490/15 had passed an order to the effect that the Corporate Debtor as a right to compensation in respect of the ceiling surplus of Lands after Raygada Property, to an extent of 506.690 acres. In fact, the Liquidator /7th Respondent in his e.mail on 16.3.22 addressed to R1 to R6 had mentioned that the Corporate Debtor is entitled to 281 acres whose guideline value is Rs. 600 crores with market value of more than Rs. 1000 crores(sic) . Therefore, the Assets of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit of stakeholders , is to take into consideration as to which/what are all the properties? do form part of the Liquidation Estate . By adhering to the ingredients of Section 36(3) of the I B Code, 2016, the Registered Valuers , are to value the property. 141. In the instant case, the Erstwhile Liquidator had not obtained the valuation from the second valuer and that the liquidation value was arrived at only by one valuer. Also that the erstwhile liquidator had gone for a fresh valuation which clearly points out that Regulation 35(2) of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 was not followed. The stakeholders plea/request to go for a fresh set of valuations was not acceded to by the Erstwhile liquidator. 142. Dealing with the aspect of that the plea of the Erstwhile Liquidator, that the IA 255/IB/2021 in CP/1307/IB/2018 is not maintainable, in view of the fact that that Secured Creditors are having an option/alternative to turn down the proposal by voting against the scheme cannot be countenanced, in the eye of law, because of the fact, that the Secured Creditors had assailed the process in which the scheme was projected before the Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Property considering the extent of 5096.69 acres, in the teeth of the order of the Hon ble High Court of Orissa, in WP(C )4490/2015. Hence it is incumbent and on the part of the 7th Respondent/Liquidator to act in terms of the I B Code, 2016 and Liquidation Regulation. 149. It can not be over emphasised, that the aim of the I B Code, 2016 is for maximisation of the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor and all endeavours ought to be taken, with a view to resurrect/revive the company. Viewed in that perspective, the Rayagada Property is to made as a part and parcel of Asset Memorandum, and a Fresh Valuation of the Assets of the Corporate Debtor, has to be done, as per procedure, prescribed by law and looking at from this perspective, this Tribunal, unhesitatingly, holds that the Bid furnished by the Appellant remains as an exercise in futility. 150. As a logical corollary, the conduct of Fresh Valuation Process is the fair , just and inevitable one and then only, the process under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 can begin afresh and the same being placed for getting, an Approval from the Stakeholders Consultation Committee . 151. Section 230 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the Appellant s side, it is projected that the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal on 12.02.2021, had directed the Committee of Creditors , to negotiate with the Appellant, and further its Resolution Plan was neither put to vote nor it was declared as an unsuccessful applicant and as such his rights have been greatly affected, this Tribunal, in an unequivocal term comes to a cocksure conclusion that it is not a Stakeholder , and in any event, it is not an Aggrieved Person as per Section 61 of I B code, 2016. As such, the instant Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.302/2021 preferred by the Appellant is not maintainable, per se in the eye of law , because it is not deprived of a Legal right or having not sustained any injury, as held by this Tribunal. 156. Be that as it may, on going through the impugned order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority/NCLT, Division Bench II, Chennai in IA 255/IB/2021 in CP/1307/IB/2018, in directing a fresh valuation of the assets of Corporate Debtor, including the Rayagada Property , as per Regulation 35(2) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 and consequently, to update the Asset Memorandum and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
