9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned Adjudicating Authority for the reason being that, on earlier three occasions, the OTS proposals had already stood rejected and also because of the fact that Resolution Plan as of now has already been approved on 07.12.2023. Therefore, with regard to the instant OTS proposal submitted on 03.09.2024, by virtue of IA No. 1862/2024, there was no scope open for the said proposal to be considered to be accepted and consequentially the Impugned Order that was passed thereon, holding that the OTS proposal as prayed for in IA (IBC) No. 1862/2024, could not be considered and is not maintainable as the Resolution Plan has already been approved, cannot be faulted. The view expressed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned Order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial ) ] : 1. Heard Learned Counsels for the parties on the Appeal itself. Brief 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s attained finality, as far as which could be borne from records. 4. 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 app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... faulted of in any manner whatsoever, as new chapter cannot be permitted 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 Inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
