AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Oral Judgment: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial):
The grievance as agitated by the Appellant in the instant Company Appeal is, as against the impugned order of 27.02.2026, that has been passed by the Ld. NCLT, Chennai in IA(IBC)/1327(CHE)/2025, which was decided by the Ld. Tribunal by compositely deciding the IA(IBC)(Plan)/11(CHE)2025.
If the consequential effect of the impugned orders are taken into consideration, particularly in context of IA(IBC)(Plan)/11(CHE)2025, that has been directed to be reconsidered by the CoC in terms of Regulation 39(2) and in the light of the other directions, which has been made therein, for discussions and deliberations, which are required to be called upon in context of Clause 5.3 of the Resolution Plan, when the aspect relating to payment of the performance linked with the incentive restrictions was to be considered and henceforth. The grievance of the Appellant, as it is confined in the instant Company Appeal, is against the non-consideration of the relief sought by the Appellant in IA(IBC)/1327(CHE)/2025. In the Application thus preferred by the Appellant, the Appellant had prayed for the following reliefs,
'…V. PRAYER
In light of the above-said facts and circumstances, the Applicant herein most humbly and respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to an order:
a)Set aside the Valuation Reports for the asset class- land & building obtained from three Registered Valuers by the Respondent herein;
b)Direct the Respondent to obtain fresh valuation reports from at least two independent, sector-specialised valuers in full compliance with Regulation 35 of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016
c)Direct that no resolution plan shall be considered or approved until a reliable, final, and statutorily compliant valuation is available to all stakeholders (or) in the alternative admit the Corporate Debtor into liquidation since the maximum permissible period for CIRP is long lapsed.
d)Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case. '
Looking to the nature of the relief, which was sought by the Appellant in the Application, it was rather to set aside the valuation report, in relation to the assets, land and building, and direct the Respondents to obtain a fresh valuation report and further direct that no plan shall be considered for approval until and unless, the earlier valuation report is set aside and fresh valuation report is called. Be that as it may, at this stage we are not venturing upon to address on the merits of the reliefs claimed by the Appellant in the IA(IBC)/1327(CHE)/2025, as preferred by the Appellant before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, which have been the subject matter while disposing off IA(IBC)(Plan)/11(CHE)2025, as observed in the impugned order.
The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant had submitted that, after passing of the impugned order, since there was an order of remand for reconsideration of the plan by the CoC, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant had made a statement at bar that, the plan has already been considered and has been reserved by an order passed on 30.03.2026. In that eventuality, in case if we appreciate the arguments that has been extended by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, or his grievance as against non-consideration of IA(IBC)/1327(CHE)/2025, the implication would be that, we will have to go into the veracity of the reservation of Plan itself as made by an order of 30.03.2026, which is not the subject matter of the instant Company Appeal. Further, owing to the information imparted to us that the Plan has been reserved for orders on 30.03.2026, as a matter of fact, the purpose of remittance of reconsideration of plan too by virtue of the impugned order, itself has exhausted its judicial purpose.
Hence, at this stage, we are of the view that, we should refrain ourselves from observing or recording our own finding on merits of IA(IBC)/1327(CHE)/2025, because, any determination, we make on the said IA will have a direct bearing on the Plan itself which has been reserved on 30.03.2026 and will open the proceedings of IA(IBC)/1327(CHE)/2025, which otherwise lost its purpose by reserving orders on the plan. Hence, in that view and in order to balance the equity, we observe that since the Plan has already been reserved on 30.03.2026, if at all the Appellant feels aggrieved against the plan of 30.03.2026, and intends to put a challenge to the same, it will be open for the Appellant to press the grounds as it has been agitated, for the relief claimed by the Appellant in IA(IBC)/1327(CHE)/2025, and that would be considered at an appropriate time on its own merits.
Subject to the above, the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 229/2026 and all pending Interlocutory Applications would stand closed.