Mahamaya Food Products vs Tayal Foods Ltd

Heard Learned Counsel for the Parties.

This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 21st June, 2022. By which Order, the Adjudicating Authority has allowed the Application filed by the Resolution Professional/Chairman, Monitoring Committee directing for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and further directing for forfeiture of the performance guarantee given by the Appellant-Successful Resolution Applicant.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that after the approval of the Resolution Plan by Committee of Creditors (CoC in short), Appellant has intimated the Resolution Professional that due to lapse of sufficient time, the Appellant is unable to carry on the Resolution Plan. In this context, he has referred to letter dated 25th February, 2021. The Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC on 23.11.2020 thereafter Application was filed by the Resolution Professional for approval before the Adjudicating Authority which came to be approved on 2nd March, 2021.

The submission of Learned Counsel for the Appellant that after approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, he has intimated the Resolution Professional that due to lapse of time, he is unable to carry on the Resolution Plan does not commend us. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Ebix Singapore Pte Ltd. Vs. CoC of Educomp Solutions Ltd.” [(2022) 2 SCC 401], the Resolution Applicant after plan is approved can neither alter nor modify the Resolution Plan. In the first monitoring committee meeting, the Appellant himself has expressed his inability to implement the plan hence the monitoring committee decided to file an Application for liquidation. The performance guarantee has been forfeited by the Impugned Order since the Appellant refused to perform/implement Resolution Plan. we do not find any error in the Order forfeiting the amount under the performance guarantee. There is no error in the Order of the Adjudicating Authority, the Appeal is dismissed.