9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at they are offering non-binding bid of Rs.23 crores for the acquisition of debt which has already expired on 15.03.2023. The CoC was also of the view that the action of Appellant was with the intention to distract the resolution in progress and raises enough doubt on his integrity and intentions of submitting a plan. Thus, the offer of the Appellant was not agreed to proceed with further. The Appellant's submission that his Plan was not considered is not correct and against the records. The present is a case where CIRP period came to an end and the RP has taken extension in the CIRP and the decision was already taken by the CoC to vote on the three Resolution Plans in its Meeting dated 11.07.2023. The request by the Appellant was made on 13.07.2023 and thereafter the Plan was submitted on 23.07.2023. The CoC had deliberated and discussed the Resolution Plan of the Appellant and did not accept the request to proceed any further with the Plan of the Appellant. The submission of the Appellant that Plan submitted by the Appellant was not considered by the CoC, cannot be accepted. The CoC had already decided to vote on the Plans, which Plans were voted from 19.07.2023 to 11.08.2023 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of CoC held on 13.01.2023 three Plans were noticed to be received. The RP undertook to revert to the CoC after verifying whether the Plans are compliant. In the next Meeting of CoC on 30.01.2023, it was noticed in the Minutes that some new interested parties have approached the State Bank of India ("SBI") after last date of EoI. The CoC deliberated whether to issue fresh Form-G or to invite interested parties. In 12th CoC Meeting held on 09.02.2023, CoC decided to extend the timeline for receiving the EoI and Resolution Plans. The RP was informed to intimate all interested parties to submit their EoI and Resolution Plans by 27.02.2023. The RP issued email to all including the one, who has shown interest. Revised last date for submission of EoI was 15.02.2023 and revised final date for submission of Resolution Plans was 27.02.2023. (iii) In the 13th Meeting of the CoC held on 06.03.2023, the RP apprised the CoC that a Plan has been received from one Pinax Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.228 & 229 of 2025 4 Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd. ("Pinax") and three others Resolution Applicants. In the 14th Meeting of the CoC, Resolution Plans were discussed. In the 19th Meeting of the CoC held on 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30.01.2023 to extend the timeline, which timeline was extended, permitting Pinax - SRA to participate, which is nothing but a backdoor entry. The Form-G was required to be published afresh in the event the CoC considered permitting others to participate. The procedure adopted by CoC and RP is contrary to Regulation 36A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations 2016). The EoI and Resolution Plan received from Pinax was without publication of Form-G, could not have been looked into and the consideration of the Plan is contrary to Regulation 39(1)(B) of Regulations 2016. No Resolution Plan, which has not been submitted within the timeline specified in Regulation 36B, could have been entertained. The entire process adopted being contrary to the Regulation deserve to be set aside. It is submitted that although the CoC has permitted Pinax to submit the Plan, but when the Appellant expressed its desire to submit a Plan, the Plan of Appellant was not considered and the Appellant was not given the opportunity to submit a Plan. It is submitted that the Appellant was entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was submitted by the Appellant was also considered and found that it is not backed by any financial proposal, since the letter which was submitted had already expired. It is submitted that CoC in its commercial wisdom has considered the Plan of the Appellant and has approved the Resolution Plan of the SRA, in which order, no interference is called for. 7. We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The submission which has been pressed by learned Counsel for the Appellant is to the conduct of CIRP, which is in breach of Regulations 2016. It is submitted that when first Form-G was published on 23.10.2022 and timeline for EoI and RFRP came to an end and three Plans were received, which were also placed in the Meeting of the CoC held on 13.01.2023. In event the CoC decided to invite certain other parties, it ought to have published Form-G afresh. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on Regulation 36A (4A) inserted with effect from 30.09.2021. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has also relied on Regulation 39(1B) to support his submission that Resolution Plan received after the time specified by the CoC under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g held on 30.01.2023. 11. In the 12th CoC Meeting held on 09.02.2023, a discussion took place regarding next steps, which discussion took place in the presence of the Appellant, who participated in the CoC Meeting. In the 12th CoC Meeting, the CoC decided to extend the timeline. Under Agenda Item No.3, following was deliberated: "3. Discussion on Resolution Plans received and the next steps The RP reiterated that a discussion was held in the last CoC meeting regarding a) whether a fresh Form G will be issued inviting more interested parties to submit their resolution plans or b) the last date for EOI and submission of resolution plans be extended with the CoC's permission in order to allow fair chance to all interested parties to participate in the resolution process expediting the process rather than to follow all formalities relating to issuance of fresh form G and related timelines. The RP apprised the CoC members that after the last meeting the representative of PNB has shared two case laws in favour of the second option namely:- * Kalpraj Dharamshi & Anr vs Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. & Anr and * Ankit Patni vs State Bank of India & Ors. The RP m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to all interested parties. 12. In pursuance of the Minutes of the CoC dated 09.02.2023, the RP invited all interested parties to submit EoI. The Appellant has never submitted any EoI in pursuance of the Form-G published on 23.10.2022 or after the extension of timeline as decided by the CoC on 09.02.2023. The Appellant having not submitted EoI either when first Form-G was issued or when timeline was extended by the CoC vide its Meeting dated 09.02.2023, it can have no grievance with regard to Resolution Plan received after extension of timeline. 13. We also notice that another Resolution Applicant namely - Brand Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. has already filed an Appeal (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.194/2025 - - Brand Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Avishek Gupta & Ors.), challenging both the order dated 20.12.2024 of the Adjudicating Authority, which Appeal has also been decided by the order of the date and the challenge with regard to process adopted by RP and the CoC has already been dealt with in that Appeal. For the reasons given in our judgment dated 18.02.2025 in the Appeal filed by Brand Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd., we do not find any material irregularity committed by the RP, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this purpose which he has now managed to gather after his request and persuasion to friends and relatives. The CoC deliberated on the issue and discussed their concerns including what options can be explored if the promoter wants to pitch in at this juncture of CIRP, what might be the possible impact on timelines, what can be the implications of the manner of treatment of OC and how they will be paid, impact on PUFE transactions filed etc. After some deliberation the CoC members did not agree to consider such request of the promoter/director of CD and said in the meeting that they will provide a written reason to RP regarding grounds not accepting the request." 16. The CoC has given its reasons for not accepting the Plan of the Appellant at that stage. As noted above, on 23.07.2023, the Appellant has sent an email giving a Resolution Plan to the RP. In the 21st CoC Meeting held on 25.07.2023, the Resolution Plan received from the Appellant on 23.07.2023 came for consideration. The Resolution Plan of the Appellant was deliberated by the CoC and CoC did not accept the Resolution Plan submitted by the Appellant. At Agenda Item No.4, the proposal received from the Appellant was disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Meeting of the CoC clearly indicate that the proposal submitted by Appellant was discussed and considered on merits. It was noticed that a letter from Phoenix ARC is provided, which indicate that they are offering non-binding bid of Rs.23 crores for the acquisition of debt which has already expired on 15.03.2023. The CoC was also of the view that the action of Appellant was with the intention to distract the resolution in progress and raises enough doubt on his integrity and intentions of submitting a plan. Thus, the offer of the Appellant was not agreed to proceed with further. We, thus, are of the view that the Appellant's submission that his Plan was not considered is not correct and against the records. 18. The present is a case where CIRP period came to an end and the RP has taken extension in the CIRP and the decision was already taken by the CoC to vote on the three Resolution Plans in its Meeting dated 11.07.2023. The request by the Appellant was made on 13.07.2023 and thereafter the Plan was submitted on 23.07.2023. We find that the CoC had deliberated and discussed the Resolution Plan of the Appellant and did not accept the request to proceed any further with the Plan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
