9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant himself was admittedly determined as be an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant. The rejection of the of the intervention Application was rightly made because the Appellant was not even required to be heard even at the consideration of approval of the stage when the Resolution Plan is placed before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority for its approval. Rejection of application filed for the purposes of approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 30 of I B Code - HELD THAT:- As far as, the aspect pertaining to Section 30 (2) of I B Code, it would be absolutely falling within the domain of the learned Adjudicating Authority to determine as to whether the approved Resolution Plan by the COC falls to be within the parameters prescribed therein, as that contained in clause A B of Section 30(2). Ensuring the satisfaction of those conditions is a prerogative of the tribunal and not a right of the Appellant to ensure its compliance, particularly when the plan of the has Appellant already been rejected as their rights are not at all to be affected at the stage when the mechanism prescribed under section 53 of I B Code, was to be resorted to. Hence the appeal lacks merit and the same would st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cus standi to either intervene or to put a challenge to the process of the approval of the Resolution Plan granted in favour of M/s Lulu International shopping malls Private Limited. Appeal dismissed. - [ Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma ] Member ( Judicial ) And [ Indevar Pandey ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellants : Ms. Lily Francis, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. VVSN. Raju, Advocate for R1 Mr. P.H. Arvindh Pandian, Senior Advocate For Mr. Pradeep Joy Ms. Dharmya MS, Advocate for R2 For Appellants : Ms. Lily Francis, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. VVSN. Raju, Advocate for R1 Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Senior Advocate For Mr. Palash Taing, Ms. Priyanka Deshmukh, and Ms. Alina Merin Mathew, Counsels for R2/COC Mr. P.H. Arvindh Pandian, Senior Advocate For Mr. Pradeep Joy Ms. Dharmya MS, Advocate for Impleadment JUDGMENT ( Hybrid Mode ) ( Per : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma , Member ( Judicial ) These are 2 Company Appeals being Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 342/2024, and Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.343/2024, as they are emanating from the Company Petition (IB) No. 296/7/HDB/2022, though from the orders independently passed on different Interlocutory Applications, but since f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration and in the meeting of Committee of Creditors, which was held on 09.02.2024. In the meeting it was thus held that certain modifications were suggested to be carried in the Resolution Plan given by the Appellant and for which the Appellant was granted time to carry out the necessary modifications and to submit the revised Resolution Plan on or before 06.03.2024. The Respondent No.1 is shown to have been approached by the Appellant informing, that each of the Perspective Resolution Applicants are also proposing to submit the revised Resolution Plan for its reconsideration, so as to ensure and include the 100% repayment could be ensured to the Secured Financial Creditors and in addition to, the Revised Resolution Plan of certain Perspective Resolution Applicants and had also offered to distribute the available cash balance of the Corporate Debtor, in favour of the Secured Financial Creditors. For the purposes of considering the contents of the revised Resolution Plan a meeting was convened of the Committee of Creditors, in the absence of the other members of the Committee of Creditors. But, however, the processing and reconsideration of the Resolution Plan was extended, for its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Appellant, owing to the fact that the revised Resolution Plan which was submitted by the Appellant, it stood rejected on 28.03.2024, and the said order of rejection of the Resolution Plan has attained finality. Consequent to the rejection of the Intervention Application the Appellant has filed the Instant Company Appeal, wherein they have prayed for the following reliefs: - A. To aside the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the Learned National Company Law Tribunal Hyderabad Bench-II in I.VN. No. 20 of 2024 in C.P (I.B.) No. 296/9/HDB/2022; B. Such other and/or further order/orders be passed as to this Hon ble Tribunal deem fit and proper The said application has been rejected by the Impugned Order of 13.06.2024, against which the Appeal has been preferred through Ms. Lilly Francis, as counsel on Record to the Appeal. Initially the Appeal was accompanied with Condone Delay Application and the same was Allowed by an order of 18.09.2024, and the delay was Condoned and the Respondents were called upon to file their Counter Affidavit. The matter ever since then remained pending till it was listed today for orders. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, addressed the Appeal on merits. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sorted to. Hence the appeal lacks merit and the same would stand dismissed. 2. The Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 343/2023 is listed along with IA No. 1195/2024, whereby the successful resolution applicant M/s Lulu International shopping malls Private Limited, had sought their Impleadment in the Appeal. Having considered the fact that their plan already stands approved and if any orders are likely to be passed in the instant appeal their rights are likely to be affected, the IA No. 1195/2024, would stand allowed, the applicant intervener M/s Lulu International shopping malls Private Limited, is being permitted to intervene in the appeal. The Appellant herein, who is also the appellant of the appeal already decided by the aforesaid part of today's judgment who has put a challenge to the order passed on IA No. 1229/2024, as rendered in CP(IB)No. 296/7/HDB/2022. The factual part as far as the instant appeal is concerned, the same will remain similar up to the stage of filing of the application IA No.1229/2024, preferred by the appellant who has already been dealt with the above, and has been determined as to be an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant and whose Intervention Applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
