AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
06.03.2024 : This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 19.04.2023, whereby an amount of Rs.25.00 Lac as deposited by the appellant along with the Resolution Plan has since been forfeited.
We have gone through the record of the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal. The amount has been forfeited as the appellant could not fulfil the criteria fixed by the Committee of Creditors for submission of such resolution plan, the extract of which is as follows:
“The said deposit shall be forfeited if any information and/ or records provided in expression of interest is found to be false or incorrect and discovery of any false information or record at any time will render the resolution applicant ineligible to submit resolution plan and attract penal action under the Code.”
Admittedly, the resolution plan of the appellant was rejected on the following grounds:-
1.The amount provided, for Financial Creditors to the tune of 22.36% of their total claims accepted and for Operational Creditors to the tune of 10.00% of their total claims accepted, is not accepted to Committee of Creditors (COC) being too low amount.
2.A deposit amount of Rs. 10 lacs was provided instead of Rs.25 lacs, as required under Criteria fixed by COC for submission of Resolution Plan and the said submission of amount of RS.1 0 lacs has also been delayed.
3.RA has provided proposed payment of RS.8.96 crore to be paid in 550 days, against the Average Liquidation Value of about RS.7.91 crore. This period bound to prolong further looking into proposal of RA for getting NOC from Bankers for sale of his personal properties. The period of 550 days is too long and is full of uncertainty.
4.In the source of funding provided in Plan by way of sale of two properties held as collateral by Andhra Bank and PN8, which both the bankers are not inclined to release. Another major source of funding shown in plan is from friends and relatives, however, neither have any supporting letter of offer of loan nor any particulars of such friend and relatives has been provided. Thus, without the validity. of source of funds, the Resolution Plan has no sanctity.
5.RA has asked that Corporate Debtor shall be at liberty to raise further credit facilities and existing charge holders shall cede to the pari-passu charge in favour of new lender. Financial Creditors are not keen to cede their charge in favour of new lenders until the complete Implementation of Resolution Plan.
6.Andhra Bank and PNB have already initiated steps for declaring the RA as Willful Defaulter.
7.Transaction Audit findings have shown Preferential, undervalued, extortionate credit Transactions as defined in sections 43.45 and 50 with amounts running into crores of rupees."
We have also gone through the impugned order passed by the learned NCLT which records the minutes of meeting dated 13.05.2019, 02.06.2019 as well as 19.06.2019. We find the amount has been forfeited on the ground the appellant has made false submissions not only with regard to the fact the appellant has deposited Rs.25.00 Lacs with the resolution plan, as admittedly, a cheque of Rs.10.00 Lacs, given later was dishonoured but he also concealed the fact the appellant was a related party of Corporate Debtor. The submissions in respect of the related party are mentioned in para-4 of impugned order.
Considering the facts, we do not intend to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. File be consigned.