AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[Per: Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical)]
Succinctly put, the Learned Counsels for the Appellants in these ‘Appeals’ vociferously argued that the objections raised by them were never addressed to by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’, specifically, regarding violation of Section 31(4) of the Code; violation of statutory undertaking given by the Corporate Debtor to the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy; the objection that the Plan is prejudicial to ‘Public Interest’ and that the Resolution Professional of RPPL had hastily convened the CoC Meeting, coinciding with the date of the Report of the Mediator. It is also further argued by the Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Abhijeet Sinha that there were serious violations of the Provisions of Section 30 (2) of the Code as the mandatory approval of the ‘Competition Commission of India’ has not been taken by the ‘Successful Resolution Applicant’ (“SRA”), prior to approval of the Plan, and that some of the Creditors have not been treated as ‘Financial Creditors’, as their Applications filed seeking for such directions have been kept pending and were taken up by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ only after the approval of the Plan. The Learned Senior Counsel Mr. V. Prakash, appearing for ‘L&T Infra Investment Partners’, contended that L&T had submitted their Claim on 27/12/2019 and at that point of time as the ‘Law’ did not allow filing of Claims in both the CIRPs, the Claim against RPPL was withdrawn on 11/03/2020 and submitted subsequent to the view taken by this Tribunal on 8/12/2020. However, MA 33/2021 filed on 23/03/2021 was not decided till 15/03/2022 and was thereafter, dismissed as infructuous. The Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. T.K. Bhaskar brought to the notice of the Bench, the various objections raised by the Appellants to the approval of the Plan and further contended that these objections were not adjudicated by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’, erroneously on the ground that ‘Consolidation’ itself was rejected. Briefly put, the Learned Counsels Mr. P.H. Arvindh Pandian, Mr. A.G. Sathyanarayana appearing for the Respondents and the Learned Counsel Ms. Ranjana Roy appearing for the SRA vehemently contended that the ‘Adjudicating Authority’, was justified in approving the ‘Resolution Plan’.
Needless to add, as ‘Consolidation’ has already been allowed by this Tribunal, consequently, the approval of the Resolution Plan is set aside. However, it is open to the Resolution Applicant to submit a Consolidated Plan, if so desired, before the CoC for approval and the Consolidated CoC shall proceed in accordance with ‘Law’. Having regard to the fact that considerable time has been lost, and that IBC is a time bound process, it is requested that the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ shall complete the process as expeditiously as practicable and as provided for under the ‘Code’. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not given any findings on whether prior approval of the ‘Competition Commission of India’ is necessary under the ‘Competition Act, 2002’, to be taken by the ‘Resolution Applicant’; whether there were any violations of the Provisions of Section 30(2) (e) of the Code; whether process under Section 61 (3) has been given a go-by or whether all the Stakeholders’ interests have been taken care of. To reiterate, this Tribunal has not expressed any view on the merits of the Resolution Plan or made any observation regarding the conduct of the Resolution Professional.
In view of the Judgment rendered in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) Nos. 323/2021, 96/2022, 334/2021, 335/2021, 340/2021, 06/2022, 104/2022, 328/2021 & 88/2022, allowing ‘Consolidation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ of both RPPL and RISPL, the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) Nos. 94/2022, 114/2022, 118/2022, 72/2022, 79/2022, 93/2022, 131/2022 and 132/2022 are ‘allowed’ to the extent of setting aside the Resolution Plan only. All other contentions are kept open.
For all the aforegoing reasons, the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) Nos. 94/2022, 114/2022, 118/2022, 72/2022, 79/2022, 93/2022, 131/2022 & 132/2022 are ‘allowed’ and the Impugned Order dated 01/02/2022 in Inv. P/11/CHE/2021 in IA No. 460/2021 in IBA 1099/2019, Inv. P/6/CHE/2021 in IA No. 460/2021 in IBA 1099/2019, MA/677/2021 in IBA/1099/2019, IA(IBC)/736/CHE/2021 in IA(IBC)/460/CHE/2021 in IBA/1099/2019 and MA(IBC)/33/CHE/2021 in IBA/1099/2019 is set aside. All connected pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, are ‘closed’.