9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rief facts which engage our consideration are that the challenge in the instant Company Appeal, as given by the Appellant is to the Impugned Order dated 12.09.2024, on the ground that the order rendered in IA (IBC) No. 1862/2024, by the Learned Adjudicating Authority is without assigning any reasons and without considering the stand taken by the Appellant in the application which was preferred by him, before the Learned Adjudicating Authority. 2. If the controversy is taken into consideration, the facts which are revealed are that, the Corporate Debtor had entered into a term loan agreement, with a consortium of Banks, led by the State Bank of India, for the purpose of setting up a 5-Star Hotel, that the Corporate Debtor has admittedly sig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Appellant further submits that after the approval of the Resolution Plan, the SRA failed to implement the approved Resolution Plan and the Financial Creditor filed an application to re-start CIRP proceedings again. Against this backdrop, he submitted a fresh OTS proposal of Rs. 90 Crores, by filing an application in IA No. 1862/2024, thereby offering a better recovery than the Resolution Plan, which has already been approved on 07.12.2023. 5. The NCLT, Hyderabad, however, dismissed the said application preferred by the Appellant containing the offer of OTS of Rs. 90 Crores, by an order of 12.09.2024, observing thereof that since the Resolution Plan has already been approved, the application is not maintainable and accordingly, the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmitted to be opened, when the Appellant himself has failed on three earlier occasions to get his OTS proposals approved and because of the fact that the Resolution Plan as of now has already been approved. In these circumstances, the application being IA (IBC) No. 1862/2024, could not have been considered by the Learned Adjudicating Authority and the same has been rightly rejected by the Impugned Order, which does not call for any interference in the exercise of the Appellate jurisdiction by this Appellate Tribunal under Section 61 of I & B Code, 2016. The Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 454/2024, lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
The connected pending Interlocutory Applications , if any , would stand closed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
