10th September, 2024 Approval of Resolution Plan - Drish Shoes Limited [239/CHD/HRY/2021] (4.1 MB)
IA (Plan). No 1734/2023, IA No. 406/2024 & IA No. 1420/2024
in
Company Petition (IB) No. 239/Chd/Hry/2021
Page 1 of 43
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH (COURT I) IA.NO. (Plan) 1734/2023, IA No. 406/2024 & IA No. 1420/2024 IN
IN THE MATTER OF: M/s REEM TANNERS PVT LTD
...Petitioner/ Operational Creditor Versus M/s DRISH SHOES LTD
…Respondent/ Corporate Debtor
AND IN THE MATTER OF IA (Plan) 1734/2023:
Mohit Chawla
Resolution Professional
For M/s. Drish Shoes Limited
Having Office at:
Unit no. 203-204, Industrial Area,
Chandigarh- 160002
…APPLICANT
AND IN THE MATTER OF IA 406/2024:
Drish Shoes Workers Union
Vill. Rajpura, Bharatgarh Road, Nalagarh
Through President/ Authorized Representative
Mr. Sridhar Dass S/o Shri Kapilcharan, Vill. Dhanna,
P.O. Bhatia, Tehsil Nalagarh, Solan,
Himachal Pradesh- 174101
…APPLICANT
VERSUS
M/s Drish Shoes Ltd through its Resolution Professional Sh.
Mohit Chawla
Unit- A, 203-204, 2nd Floor, Elante Offices, Industrial Area,
Phase No. 1, Chandigarh- 160002
…RESPONDENT
in
Page 2 of 43
AND IN THE MATTER OF IA 1420/2024: Indereshwar Singh Paul Erstwhile Promoter/ Director R/o #351, Sector 21, Panchkula, Haryana- 134116 …APPLICANT VERSUS
- Mohit Chawla, Resolution Professional of M/s Drish Shoes Ltd SCO #2935-36, Sector 22 C, Chandigarh- 160022
- Bank of India CoC of M/s Drish Shoes Ltd, Main Branch, SCO #81-82, Sector 17 B, Chandigarh- 160017 Through its Branch Manager …RESPONDENT
Order Delivered on: 01.07.2024
SECTION: 30(6) read with 31(1) of the IBC, 2016 and Sec 60(5) of the IBC,
2016, read with R.11 (NCLT Rules, 2016).
CORAM:
SH. HARNAM SINGH THAKUR, HON’BLE MEMBER (J)
SH. L. N. GUPTA, HON’BLE MEMBER (T)
PRESENT:
For Resolution Professional
For SRA
For Bank of India
For the Applicant in IA 1420/2024
For the Applicant in IA 406/2024
: Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Sr Advocate Mr. Harsh Garg, Advocate Mr. Utkarsh Khatana Advocate Mr. Prajwal Chauhan, Advocate
: Mr Atul V. Sood, Advocate
: Mr. Vinesh Singla, Advocate
: Mr. Manish Jain, Advocate
: Mr. Abhyendra Gupta, Advocate
in
Page 3 of 43
ORDER
PER: SH. L. N. GUPTA, M(T) & SH. HARNAM SINGH THAKUR, M(J)
Before we deal with the IA No.1734 of 2024 preferred by RP under Section 30(6) read with Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, we would like to examine on merits the IA No. 406 of 2024 filed by Drish Shoes Workers Union and IA No.1420 of 2024 preferred by Mr. Indereshwar Singh Paul, the erstwhile Director of M/s Drish Shoes Limited (the "Corporate Debtor") through this common order.
IA- 406/2024
The present IA has been preferred under Section 60(5) of the IBC 2016, by Drish Shoes Workers Union (the “applicant”) against the Corporate Debtor through its RP, seeking adjudication/re-verification of its claim. 3. The grievance of the Applicant is that the claim of the workers shall be calculated to the tune of Rs. 3,14,31,842/-, which at present are calculated at Rs. 1,85,62,360/-. The Applicant has sought re-verification of this claim on the following grounds: 3.1 The Applicant had earlier filed an IA No. 2357 of 2023 before this Tribunal to re-verify their claimed amount. This Tribunal, on 22.12.2023, directed the RP to re-examine the claims and provide detailed calculations, allowing three weeks’ time for compliance.
in
Page 4 of 43
3.2 The RP issued a notice seeking clarifications from the Workers Union, which was duly replied to by the Union. 3.3 Despite, it is alleged that the RP reaffirmed the earlier calculation of Rs. 1,85,62,360/-, without proper consideration of the detailed reply and supporting documents provided by the Workers Union. 3.4 The RP does not have jurisdiction to decide on the legality of the layoff and closure of the undertaking, which affects the claim amounts. 3.5 During the moratorium, the claim could not be adjudicated by any other forum and therefore, this Tribunal's intervention is sought under Section 60(5) of the IBC. 4. On issuance of notice, the RP filed its reply mainly stating the following: 4.1 The Applicant’s initial claim of Rs. 3,14,31,842/- was partially admitted to the extent of Rs. 1,85,62,360/- after verifying the accounts and supporting documents of the Corporate Debtor. 4.2 The Applicant/Workers Union did not challenge the partial admission of their claim for over a year until the present resolution plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). 4.3 The layoff notice issued by the Corporate Debtor on 31.07.2021 informed the workers of a 45-days’ layoff, which was extended beyond the initial period due to the non-resumption of business.
in
Page 5 of 43
4.4
Based on the layoff, the RP calculated the workers' claims only up to
September 2021, rejecting any claim beyond this period. The RP has argued
that the Workers Union did not claim compensation for closure in their initial
submission, nor was there any adjudication by a competent authority granting
such benefits.
4.5
It is also contended by the RP that no new claims could be admitted
once the Resolution Plan is approved by the CoC.
5.
The Applicant filed Rejoinder denying the contentions raised by the RP.
6.
We heard the submissions of both the partiers and perused the pleadings
on record. It is observed that the difference between the amount of Rs.
3,14,31,842 claimed by the Applicant and amount of Rs. 1,85,62,360 already
admitted by RP is coming due to the reason that the RP did not consider the
salary of workers beyond September 2021, which was a declared lay off period.
7.
From the record, we notice that the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor
commenced on 12.05.2022. The layoff notice was issued on 31.07.2021
informing the workers of a 45-days’ layoff, which was extended further due to
the non-resumption of business. Whether the Workers are entitled to claim
their dues for the lay off period from September 2021, is an issue which relates
to the period prior to the commencement of CIRP, and which could have been
decided by the court of appropriate jurisdiction under the relevant Labour
laws. The Applicant has, however, contended that they could not approach any
in
Page 6 of 43
other forum for the adjudication of the lay off period amount since the
moratorium under Section 14 was in force.
In this backdrop, it is worthwhile to refer to the Judgement of Hon’ble High
Court of Kerala in the matter of Deputy Commissioner (Works Contract),
Kerala State Goods And Services Tax Department, Ernakulam Vs National
Company Law Tribunal in WP(C) NO. 39185 OF 2022, wherein the following
was held:
“5.3 Thus, after declaring the moratorium, there is an embargo on
enforcing the demand, but there is no embargo under Section 14, read with
Section 33(5) of the IBC, for determining the quantum of tax and other
levies, if any, against the Corporate Debtor.”
Thus, while drawing the simile, in our view, there was no legal embargo before
the Applicant to seek adjudication before the relevant Labour Law authority of
their dues pertaining to the lay off period, which pertain to the pre-CIRP period.
Further, the legal embargo under Section 14(1) of IBC 2016 is only about
execution of a claim and not for determining the quantum of dues/claim.
8.
Further, the RP is empowered to represent the Corporate Debtor before a
Judicial Forum. Since the issue whether Applicant is entitled to salary for the
lay off period is arising prior to the initiation of CIRP, the same is not arising
out of the insolvency proceedings and is therefore, dehors to the jurisdiction of
this Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5) of IBC 2016.
in
Page 7 of 43
Moreover, the prayer of the Applicant is for seeking re-verification/
Adjudication of their claim, an exercise, that has already been done by RP
under orders passed by this Adjudicating Authority in earlier IA-2357/ 2023.
10.
Since this Tribunal is not having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the
entitlement of the Applicant during the lay off period and in peculiar
circumstances that the resolution plan has been approved by the CoC and
introduction of any fresh claim would be hydra head popping on the Resolution
Applicant, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision of RP.
11.
In view of the above, IA No. 406 of 2024 is dismissed being
misconceived.
IA- 1420/2024
The present IA has been filed under section 60(5) of the IBC 2016 by Mr. Indereshwar Singh Paul ("the Applicant"), the erstwhile Director of M/s Drish Shoes Limited ("Corporate Debtor"), seeking the following reliefs: “¡. allow the present application; ii. declare the 19th CoC meeting held on 27.07.2023 and all decisions taken therein, including approval of the Resolution Plan as illegal due to the expiration of the CIRP period on 30.06.2023; iii. direct the Respondent-RP to publish Form G with respect to the Corporate Debtor afresh; and/or iv. pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority may deem fit and proper in the given facts & circumstances.”
in
Page 8 of 43
The Applicant has contended the following in support of its prayers: 13.1 The Applicant is a promoter and suspended director of the Corporate Debtor (CD), an MSME, and has submitted a copy of the MSME certificate. 13.2 The CD defaulted on credit facilities availed from Respondent No. 2 (Bank of India) due to external factors, leading to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on 12.05.2022. Despite the publication of Form G thrice, the CoC, consisting solely of Bank of India, was not satisfied with the resolution plans received until the 3rd publication. 13.3 The Resolution Plan of M/s Saboo Tor Pvt. Ltd., with a total value of Rs. 61.00 crores, was approved by the CoC in its 19th meeting on 27.07.2023, despite the Applicant offering a higher value of Rs. 74.30 crores. The Applicant's One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal was under consideration, and the CoC's decision to approve the Resolution Plan was allegedly made after the expiry of the CIRP period, rendering the CoC functus officio. 13.4 The Applicant also highlights that the approval of the Resolution Plan was illegal as it was made after the expiration of the CIRP period without an extension granted by this Adjudicating Authority. 14. The Respondent/RP has filed a short note of objection to the Application. The objections raised by the RP reads thus: 14.1 The application for extension of the CIRP period for 30 days beyond the 330-day limit was filed on 29.06.2023, prior to the expiration of the 330 days.
in
Page 9 of 43
14.2 The 19th CoC meeting held on 27.07.2023 approved the Resolution Plan
of M/s Saboo Tor Pvt. Ltd., and the extension application was pending
adjudication before this Adjudicating Authority at that time.
14.3 The Tribunal granted the extension of 30 days beyond the 330 days on
18.10.2023, by excluding the period of pendency (29.06.2023 to 18.10.2023).
The extension was valid and legal as per the order dated 18.10.2023, which
has not been challenged by the Applicant.
14.4 The Applicant had previously filed a similar application vide IA No.
1748/2023, which was dismissed by this Tribunal on 22.12.2023. This
dismissal was upheld by the Hon'ble NCLAT and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
14.5 The commercial wisdom of the CoC, including decisions on OTS
proposals, cannot be interfered with by this Tribunal unless there is an
evidence of mala fide or arbitrary action.
15.
We heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the pleadings
on record including the Written Submissions. The Applicant argued that the
approval of the Resolution Plan was made by COC after expiration of the CIRP
period without an extension granted by this Adjudicating Authority.
Per Contra, the Respondent/RP contended that the 19th CoC meeting held on
27.07.2023 approved the Resolution Plan, when the extension application filed
(prior to the expiration of the 330 days) on 29.06.2023 was pending
adjudication before this Adjudicating Authority. Vide order dated 18.10.2023,
this Adjudicating Authority granted the extension of 30 days beyond the period
in
Page 10 of 43
of 330 days, by excluding the period of pendency (29.06.2023 to 18.10.2023). The order of extension was valid and legal, as the same was not challenged by the Applicant. In this backdrop, we refer to the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by this Adjudicating Authority, the relevant extract of which reads thus:
Thus, we find from the order (ibid) that this Adjudicating Authority had allowed the extension of 30 days beyond 330 days period from the date of the order (i.e.,18.10.2023) by excluding the period of pendency of the IA filed by RP for seeking extension. Hence, in view of the above, the contention raised by the Applicant that the Resolution Plan was approved by COC after expiration of the CIRP period without an extension granted by this Adjudicating Authority, does not survive. In view of the above, we find no force in the objection raised by the Applicant and the same is rejected. 16. The IA-1420/2024 is accordingly rejected.
in
Page 11 of 43
IA (Plan) No.1734 of 2024
Now, we deal with the IA No.1734 of 2024 preferred by Mr. Mohit Chawla, Resolution Professional of M/s. Drish Shoes Limited (“Applicant/ Resolution Professional”) under Section 30(6) read with Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 and Regulation 39 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process of Corporate Debtor) Regulations 2016, for approval of the Resolution plan submitted by M/s Saboo Tor Pvt Ltd (“Successful Resolution Applicant” / “SRA”).
The Applicant has made the following prayers:
a. “The present application may kindly be allowed and the
resolution plan of M/s Saboo Tor Pvt. Ltd. as approved by the
committee of creditors (Vide 19th CoC meeting held on 27.07.2023)
in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of Drish Shoes
Limited may kindly be approved so to bind the corporate debtor, its
employee, members, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in
the resolution
b. The reliefs and concessions including benefit available under
Income Tax Act in relation to carry forward of losses may be
granted as prayed in Resolution Plan submitted by the Successful
Resolution Applicant.”
in
Page 12 of 43
To put briefly, the facts of the present case are that the
Operational Creditor M/s Reem Tanners filed an application under
Section 9 of IBC, 2016 for initiating CIR Process against the
Corporate Debtor (CD) M/s. Drish Shoes Limited. The said
Application was admitted by this Tribunal vide Order dated
12.05.2022 and Mr. Pardeep Kumar Kabra was appointed as the
Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of the CD.
20.
It is submitted by the Applicant that in terms of Regulation
6(1) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate
Persons)
Regulations,
2016,
the
said
IRP
made
a
Public
Announcement in Form-A on 14.05.2022 to invite claims, publishing
in the newspapers ‘Indian Express’ (Chandigarh Edition, English
Newspaper) and ‘Himachal Dastak’ (Chandigarh Edition, Regional
Newspaper). The said Public Announcement was uploaded on the
website of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) too.
21.
It is further submitted that the IRP constituted the Committee
of Creditors (CoC) comprising of the following sole creditor:
S.No
FINANCIAL CREDITOR
(Secured)
VOTING SHARE IN
PERCENTAGE
1.
Bank of India 100% 22. It is stated by the Applicant that the COC in its second meeting dated 29.06.2022 resolved to replace the present IRP, and
in
Page 13 of 43
appoint Mr. Mohit Chawla as RP of the CD, whose appointment was
confirmed
by
this
Adjudicating
authority
vide
order
dated
01.09.2022. He continued the RP of CD during the subsequent CIR
process.
23.
‘Form-G’
was
published
on
27.07.2022
in
two
daily
newspapers, namely, “Times of India” (English), and “Dainik Jagran”
(Hindi). It is further stated that the Applicant/RP received 03
Expressions of Interest (EOIs). However, the CoC felt that the EoI
should be expanded to ensure healthy negotiations, therefore, Form
G was republished on 30.08.2022 and 04 more EoIs were received by
IRP/RP. It is added by the applicant that as per the decision of COC,
the Form G was again republished on 24.09.2022 and RP received
EoIs from 03 more PRAs.
24.
It is submitted by the Applicant that out of the 07 EOIs so
received, the Resolution Plans were submitted by the following three
(03) Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs) along with the required
EMD. were found eligible as per Section 29 A of the IBC, 2016:
S. No
Eligible PRA(s)
Khandwala Finstock Pvt Ltd
United Biotech Pvt Ltd
Saboo Tor Pvt Ltd.
in
Page 14 of 43
Accordingly, these 03 Resolution Plans were placed before the 15th meeting of CoC of the CD held on 14.03.2023 vide Agenda Item no. 6, which is reproduced below:
in
Page 15 of 43
It is further submitted that the e-voting on the Resolutions plans put before the CoC took place in its 19th Meeting held on 27.07.2023, wherein the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s Saboo Tor Pvt Ltd was approved with 100% votes in its favour. The Resolutions approved by the said COC read thus:
in
Page 16 of 43
The Applicant/RP has annexed the 29A Certificate of the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) M/s Saboo Tor Pvt Ltd on pages 748 to 750 of the application, which is reproduced below for an immediate reference:
in
Page 17 of 43
in
Page 18 of 43
in
Page 19 of 43
The Applicant/RP has also filed on record his affidavit (on pages 765-766 of the application) that the SRA is eligible under Section 29A of the IBC, 2016, which is reproduced below:
It is stated by the Applicant that in terms of the Regulation 36B(4A) of the IBBI (IRPCP) Regulations, 2016, it received from the SRA, the Performance Security deposit of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Crore) along with EMD of Rs. 01,00,00,000/- (Rs. one Crore)
in
Page 20 of 43
through RTGS in the bank account operated by the Applicant on 29.07.2023. Copy of the receipt confirmation issued by Bank of India as annexed on page no. 767 of the application is reproduced below for an immediate reference:
in
Page 21 of 43
-
In compliance with Regulation 39(4) of the IBBI (IRPCP) Regulations 2016, the Applicant /RP has filed “Compliance Certificate” in Form H (pages 751-764 of the application) certifying that the present Resolution Plan duly approved by the CoC members complies with all the provisions of the IBC and IRPCP Regulations, 2016.
in Page 22 of 43 in Page 23 of 43 in Page 24 of 43 in Page 25 of 43 in Page 26 of 43 in Page 27 of 43 in Page 28 of 43 in Page 29 of 43
As per the Form ‘H’ (ibid), the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the Corporate Debtor is Rs. 82,04,73,714.50/- and its Liquidation Value (LV) is Rs. 59,31,62,916.00/-. The details of the distribution of the Resolution Plan Amount amongst Stakeholders are given in the table reflected against serial no. 7 of the Form ‘H’, as per which, the gross amount provided under the Resolution Plan is Rs. 60,99,88,836/- (including CIRP cost of Rs. 30,00,000/-)., which comes to approximately 102.8% of the Liquidation Value (LV) and around 74.4% of the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the Corporate Debtor.
in
Page 30 of 43
In compliance of directions of this Tribunal vide order dated 07.08.2023 and 24.08.2023, the SRA has filed an Affidavit vide Diary No. 02448/2 dated 30.08.2023, undertaking to pay contributions and other sums due under EPF, Insurance Scheme and Gratuity Act for the period up to approval of the resolution Plan. The relevant extract of the affidavit is reproduced thus:
in
Page 31 of 43
As regards the term and implementation schedule, it has been proposed to implement the Resolution Plan within 06 months from its approval by the Adjudicating Authority as per the following events’ schedule (pages 713-714 of the application):
in
Page 32 of 43
- The net worth of SRA as on 31.03.2022 is stated to be Rs. 3784.15 lakhs (page 691 of the application) and the net worth of its other group companies, as stated on page 692, to be is as follows:
The sources of funds as mentioned in the Resolution Plan on page 721 of the Application are reproduced as under:
in
Page 33 of 43
Regarding supervision and monitoring over implementation of the Resolution Plan, it has been proposed to constitute a 03 Member Monitoring Committee comprising of one representative of RA and one representative of secured Financial Creditor under the chairmanship of RP. The relevant details given in the Resolution Plan (on pages 714-715 of the application) are reproduced thus:
in
Page 34 of 43
in
Page 35 of 43
It is further noted from the record that the SRA has filed an Affidavit (page no. 665-670 of the Application) in relation to the resolution plan being binding in response to the RFRP issued by the RP. The relevant extracts of the affidavit are reproduced thus:
in
Page 36 of 43
in
Page 37 of 43
in
Page 38 of 43
On perusal of the Resolution Plan, it is seen that the SRA has sought certain reliefs and concessions, as listed from page 57-60 of the Resolution Plan (pages 727-730 of the application). During the final hearing, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant confirmed that the Resolution Plan shall be implemented even if no relief and concession is granted. However, in compliance with order of this Adjudicating Authority dated 13.06.2024, the SRA has filed an Affidavit vide Diary No. 02482/5 dated 13.06.2024 confirming that the reliefs and concessions as mentioned in the Resolution Plan shall not be a condition precedent to implementation of the Resolution Plan. The relevant extract of the affidavit is reproduced below
We are sanguine of the fact that the SRAs shall be eligible to get protection as available under Section 32A of IBC, 2016 and reliefs and concessions as admissible under the relevant laws.
in
Page 39 of 43
We heard the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Applicant/RP and perused the Application, and all other documents placed on record. We observe that the CoC of the Corporate Debtor, in its commercial wisdom, has duly considered and approved the instant Resolution Plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant by a voting share of 100% in its 10th Meeting held on 28.06.2023. We also note that the plan is backed by Performance Security deposit of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Crore) along with EMD of Rs. 01,00,00,000/- (Rs. one Crore) already deposited by SRA in the bank account operated by the Applicant. 40. The role of the Adjudicating Authority has been examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10673 of 2018 in the matter of “K. Sashidhar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.”, the relevant extracts of which are reproduced below: “35. Whereas, the discretion of the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is circumscribed by Section 31 limited to scrutiny of the resolution plan “as approved” by the requisite percent of voting share of financial creditors. Even in that enquiry, the grounds on which the adjudicating authority can reject the resolution plan is in reference to matters specified in Section 30(2), when the resolution plan does not conform to the stated requirements. Reverting to Section 30(2), the enquiry to be done is in respect of whether the resolution plan provides : (i) the payment of insolvency resolution process costs in a specified manner in priority to the repayment of other debts of the corporate debtor, (ii) the repayment of the debts of operational creditors in prescribed manner, (iii) the management
in
Page 40 of 43
of the affairs of the corporate debtor, (iv) the implementation and
supervision of the resolution plan, (v) does not contravene any of
the provisions of the law for the time being in force, (vi) conforms
to such other requirements as may be specified by the Board. The
Board referred to is established under Section 188 of the I&B
Code. The powers and functions of the Board have been
delineated in Section 196 of the I&B Code. None of the specified
functions of the Board, directly or indirectly, pertain to regulating
the manner in which the financial creditors ought to or ought not
to exercise their commercial wisdom during the voting on the
resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code. The
subjective satisfaction of the financial creditors at the time of
voting is bound to be a mixed baggage of variety of factors. To wit,
the feasibility and viability of the proposed resolution plan and
including their perceptions about the general capability of the
resolution applicant to translate the projected plan into a reality.
The resolution applicant may have given projections backed by
normative data but still in the opinion of the dissenting financial
creditors, it would not be free from being speculative. These
aspects are completely within the domain of the financial creditors
who are called upon to vote on the resolution plan under Section
30(4) of the I&B Code.”
“38. Indubitably, the inquiry in such an appeal would be limited to
the power exercisable by the resolution professional under Section
30(2) of the I&B Code or, at best, by the adjudicating authority
(NCLT) under Section 31(2) read with 31(1) of the I&B Code. No
other inquiry would be permissible. Further, the jurisdiction
bestowed upon the appellate authority (NCLAT) is also expressly
circumscribed. It can examine the challenge only in relation to the
in
Page 41 of 43
grounds specified in Section 61(3) of the I&B Code, which is limited to matters “other than” enquiry into the autonomy or commercial wisdom of the dissenting financial creditors. Thus, the prescribed authorities (NCLT/NCLAT) have been endowed with limited jurisdiction as specified in the I & B Code and not to act as a court of equity or exercise plenary powers.” 41. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court (Supra), it has become a well settled principle of law that the Adjudicating Authority is not required to interfere with the decision taken by the CoC in its commercial wisdom, save and except the circumstances referred to in Section 31(2) of the IBC, 2016. We find the Resolution Plan conforming to the requirement of Section 31(1) of IBC. 42. In sequel to the discussion abovementioned, we have no other option but to approve the Resolution Plan as approved by the CoC and as placed by the Applicant before this Adjudicating Authority. We, therefore, allow the present IA and approve the COC approved Resolution Plan, placed before us by the Applicant/RP, with the following directions in respect of the Corporate Debtor: (i) The Resolution Plan shall become effective from the date of passing of this Order and shall be implemented by the Monitoring Committee strictly as per the term of the Resolution Plan and Implementation Schedule given therein, i.e., within 90 days from the approval of resolution Plan vide this order;
in
Page 42 of 43
(ii) The reliefs and concessions as sought by the Resolution Applicants
shall be available subject to their admissibility under the relevant
laws, regulations, and rules;
(iii) The Performance Bank Guarantee submitted by SRA shall remain
deposited with the Monitoring Committee, and shall be released after
successful of implementation of the Resolution Plan.
(iv) The SRA will not stake any claim to the proceeds of the PUFE
transactions application filed by RP with this Adjudicating authority.
These Applications shall continue to be pursued by RP/Monitoring
Committee. The proceeds of these PUFE transactions shall go to the
Stakeholders in terms of Waterfall Mechanism under Section 53(1) of
IBC 2016
(v)
The order of the moratorium in respect to the CD passed by this
Adjudicating Authority under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016 shall cease
to have effect from the date of passing of this Order; and
(vi) The RP shall forward all the records relating to the conduct of CIRP
and Resolution Plan to IBBI for its record and database.
43.
The Applicant/Resolution Professional (RP) shall forthwith send a copy
of this Order to the CoC and the Successful Resolution Applicant for necessary
compliance. A copy of this order shall also be sent by the Applicant to the IBBI
for their record.
in
Page 43 of 43
- The IA No. 1734/2023 is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(L. N. GUPTA)
(HARNAM SINGH THAKUR)
MEMBER (T)
MEMBER (J)
Verbatim extracted text (OCR/PDF). Older scans and tables may show extraction artifacts — verify against the original for anything you act on.
No analysis has been generated for this document yet.