CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2023) 08 NCLAT CK 0091

Indian Overseas Bank vs M/s. Rathi TMT Saria Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 31 August 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson · Barun Mitra, Member (T)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No.1134 Of 2023 & I.A. No. 3949 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 330 words
1.

Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned Counsel for the Respondents.

2.

This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.07.2023 by which IA 5801 of 2022 filed by the Appellant who is 98% CoC member has been rejected. Application was filed by the Appellant praying for following reliefs:-

“(a) pass an order directing the Ld. RP to convene CoC for deciding the pending issues between the constitute members of SRAs for due implementation of resolution plan or in the alternate to cancel approved resolution plan and call for fresh bids for the value realization of the corporate debtor;

(b) Pass such other and further order(s) as may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.”

3.

The Adjudicating Authority after considering the Application has rejected the Application.

4.

In the present case, the CoC has already approved the Resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant on 07.02.2020 and the Application being IA 1159/2020 for approval of Resolution Plan is pending consideration before the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant, CoC member wanted to convene CoC meeting which has not been allowed by the Adjudicating Authority rightly so. When the plan is approved by the CoC and is pending consideration before the Adjudicating Authority, CoC cannot be allowed to hold the meeting for the purpose of considering other plans and no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting such prayer.

5.

Counsel for the Appellant lastly contended that there are other issues regarding the plan which may be allowed to be raised. When the plan is under consideration, the Appellant being CoC member, has every right to raise such issue as permissible under law. However, the prayers which were made in the application which stand rejected, cannot be allowed to be raised.

6.

With these observations, the Appeal is dismissed. The Application for approval of the plan being pending for the last three years, the Adjudicating Authority may dispose of the same at an early date.