9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent : Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Advocate with Mrinal Harsh Vardan, Kailash Ram, Advocates for R-1 and R-2 Mr. Arvind Nayyar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anuja Pethia, Mr. Subhashish Kumar, Mr. Akshay Joshi, Advocates for R-3 Mr. P Moryia, Advocate for Homebuyer JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN , J . This Appeal by a Successful Resolution Applicant ("SRA") has been filed against the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (Court-II) in IA No.188/2024 filed by Respondent No.1. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the Appeal are: (i) The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") of the Corporate Debtor - M/s. Primrose Infratech Pvt. Ltd. commenced by order dated 21.12.2018. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v) On the Application, i.e., IA No.188 of 2024, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 23.01.2024 directing the Applicant to deposit Rs.1 crore in CIRP Account of Corporate Debtor and the RP was directed to call a meeting of the CoC to examine the proposal made by Applicant vis-à-vis proposal made by SRA. Aggrieved by the said order, this Appeal has been filed. 3. We have heard Shri Sunil Fernandes, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant; Shri Arvind Nayyar, learned Senior Counsel has appearing for the RP; Shri Anupam Lal Das, learned Senior Counsel has appeared for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, challenging the order submits that after approval of Resolution Plan of the Appellant b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st date of hearing without giving any opportunity to the Appellant to respond to the Application. In the Appeal, learned Counsel for the Appellant has taken a specific ground that no opportunity was given to the Appellant to respond to the Application and on the first date of hearing, an order was passed on the Application, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the RP supported the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and submits that the Resolution Plan of the Appellant having been approved by the CoC, no direction could have been issued to place the Application filed by the Ex. Directors being IA No.188 of 2024 for consideration before the CoC. It is submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court has taken the view that there are no restriction in Section 12A and stipulation under Regulation 30A has to be construed as directory depending on the facts of each case. The learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 has also relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in Shaji Purushothaman Vs Union Bank of India & Ors. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.921 of 2019, where this Tribunal has observed that if an application is filed under Section 12A, the CoC may decide whether the proposal given by the Appellant for settlement is better than the Resolution Plan as approved by the CoC. It is submitted that as per the above judgment, the CoC can very well consider the proposal submitted by the Applicant. 7. We have considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan and Ors. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1715/ 1716 of 2023 in which judgment, this Tribunal has set aside the part of direction issued by the Adjudicating Authority giving opportunity to Ex. Director to arrive at an acceptable settlement before the next date. The direction with regard to opportunity granted to Ex. Director, so that any settlement can be arrived, was set aside. However, this Tribunal directed Application for approval of Resolution Plan should be considered and decided and it was also open for the Adjudicating Authority to consider IA No.2594 of 2023 filed by Respondent No.1. In the operating portion of the order, following was observed in last paragraph: "27. In view of the aforesaid discussion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Ex. Director, where a proposal was submitted for settlement, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have given an opportunity to SRA to submit a response to the Application, specifically when Applicant in his Application IA No.188 of 2024 has referred to various affidavits filed by SRA in the proceedings for Plan approval. The Appellant in the Appeal in ground (u), stated following: "u. Furthermore, the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity. to the Appellant to file its appropriate -response to the said Application wherein the Impugned Order has been passed as the same has a direct bearing on the Resolution Plan submitted by the Appellant and prejudice the rights of the Appellant." 10. In the facts of the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
