9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shruti Pandey, Ms. Namrata Sarogani, Mr. Kartik Pandey , Advocates For the Respondents : Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Bani Dikshit, Mr. Uddhav Khanna, Mr. Shalendra Slania, Ms. Sujal Gupta, Advocates for R - 1 Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Ms. Madhavi Khanna, Mr. Nihaad Dewan, Advocates for R-2 ( CoC ) Mr. Sidhartha Sharma, Mr. Arjun Asthana, Ms. Shalini Basu, Advocates for R-3 ( SRA ) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This Appeal has been filed by the Resolution Professional challenging order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Division Bench, Court No. II, Kolkata in IA (IB) No.1131/KB/2022 filed by Rishima SA Investments LLC (Mauritius). Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2022, the IRP made public announcement in response to which Rishima filed claim of Rs.132,89,75,268 as Financial Creditor. (ix) Resolution Professional on 16.03.2022 communicated to the Appellant that its claim filed in Form C did not meet the criteria of financial debt, hence, could not be verified and admitted. Resolution Professional asked Rishima to file corrected claim as per the CIRP Regulations. (x) Rishima filed claim in Form F as Other Creditor. Resolution Professional admitted entire claim of Rsihima as Other Creditor. Resolution Professional after receiving certain additional information issued communication dated 01.06.2022 revising the admitted amount of Rishima's claim as a contingent claim from INR 132,89,75,268 to a no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... minal value of Re.1. 3. Learned counsel for the CoC adopting the submissions of the Appellant submits that the order of the Adjudicating Authority be set aside and the claim of Rishima should be confined to Re.1 as notional value. It is submitted that foreign award is not a decree by itself. 4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Subsequent to the order dated 30.11.2023 partly allowing application I.A. (IB) No.1131/KB/2022 filed by Rishima, Resolution Plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant was approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 04.01.2024. Against order dated 04.01.2024 approving the Resolution Plan, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.143 of 2024 has been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.143 of 2024, the total claim of the Appellant has been admitted as Rs.132,89,75,268/- and has been allocated Rs.1 Lakh. We are of the view that in this appeal it is not necessary for us to enter into the issue whether the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 30.11.2023 partly allowing the application of Rishima needs to be upheld or not. The order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority has been given effect to as reflected in the Resolution Plan which stands approved on 04.01.2024. We, thus see no reason to enter into various submissions raised by the Appellant questioning order dated 30.11.2023. 7. We, thus, are of the view that in view of approval of Resolution Plan on 04.01.2024, in which Resolution Plan order dated 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
