AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORAL ORDER
IA-12/ND/2024: Prayer made in the captioned application reads thus:-
“(i)accept and approve the final resolution plan dated 17.02.2024 read along with the addendums to the resolution plan dated 24.02.2024 and 28.02.2024 as submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant, namely the Joint Venture of Mahi Buildhome Private Limited and First Forge Limited and as approved by the CoC by absolute majority, for the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor in terms of the provisions of the Code; and
(ii)pass any such or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.”
The petition could be preferred under Section 9 of IBC, 2016 by M/s Mahi Builders Home Pvt. Ltd. (Operational Creditor) seeking initiation of CIRP qua the Corporate Debtor (Unibera Developers Private Limited). The amount of debt defaulted to be paid to the applicant is Rs. 13,46,61,197/-. The Part-IV of the application preferred by Operational Creditor reads thus:-
The process as prescribed in IBC, 2016 as also in IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016 could be followed and incidentally the Operational Creditor who initiated the CIRP could emerge as Successful Bidder/Successful Resolution Applicant.
The present application has been preferred under Section 30(6) of the IBC, 2016, for approval of the Resolution Plan of SRA. On perusal of the record, we could see that RP could issue a certificate in the prescribed form viz. Form-H. The Resolution Plan submitted by the SRA satisfied the requirements of Section 30(2) of IBC, 2016 and while examining the Resolution Plan for approval, under Section 30(4) of the Code, the CoC could also satisfy itself that the requirements of Section 30(2) as also other relevant Regulations such as Regulations 36 to 39 of IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016 are met. While giving the certificate in Form H, the RP could also authenticate that the SRA is not disqualified/ineligible to submit the Resolution Plan in terms of provision of Section 29A of IBC 2016, which reads thus:-
The RP has also placed on record a copy of the Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) furnished by the SRA for implementation of the Resolution Plan, on the same being approved by this Tribunal. The PBG has been issued by Union Bank of India for an amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs which is valid till 12.03.2026. According to Ld. Counsels for RP and SRA, the Bank would be liable to honour the PBG till 12.03.2026 or up to the implementation of the Resolution Plan, as the case may be. The extended Bank Guarantee reads thus:-
As could be seen from the certificate given by the RP in Form-H, the liquidation value and fair value qua the assets of the Corporate Debtor are Rs. 19.46 Crore and Rs. 26.15 Crore respectively, while the value of the resolution plan is Rs. 254 Crores, i.e. much higher than the fair value. The RP has also placed on record the financial proposal/cash flow to indicate that the Resolution Plan is implementable. The statement reads thus:-
Our attention could also be drawn to Clause 7 of the compliance certificate given by the RP in the prescribed form. The certificate indicates that the Unsecured Financial Creditor, the Statutory Authority, the Workman and employees are offered 100% of the admitted claim, while the Operational Creditors are also offered 72.29% of the admitted claim. Since Operational Creditor itself is the SRA, the payment offered to it is hardly of any consequence. Though the plan seems to be a healthy plan and there are hardly any haircut taken by the creditors and stakeholders, still as could be viewed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs, Satish Kumar Gupta and Others [(2020) 8 SCC 531], it is the commercial wisdom of CoC to accept the offer given by the Bidders/Resolution Applicant and to accept the plan, and the scope of interference by this Tribunal in this regard is not there.
As has been noted, the SRA has given an undertaking that irrespective the grant of Relief and Concession, the plan would be implemented. As can be seen from the provision of Section 31(4), after approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 31(1) of the Code it is for SRA to ensure that all the requirements for implementation of plan are fulfilled within a period of one year. Besides the provisions of Section 32A are also applicable to SRA and the assets of the Corporate Debtor, when the Resolution Plan submitted is not by the Promoters or Directors of the Corporate Debtor. The provision would also apply in the present case.
It is noted the additional affidavit dated 28.08.2025 filed in terms of order dated 19.08.2025 of this Tribunal is on record.
Subject to the aforementioned, the Resolution Plan is approved, and it is directed that:-
a. The Monitoring Committee and Legal Committee would be formed within two days in terms of the plan.
b. The terms of the resolution plan would commence within 30 days.
c. The upfront amount of cash infusion would be deposited in the account of the Corporate Debtor within 30 days.
d. The CIRP cost would be paid in terms of the plan.
e. The Operational Creditor would be paid within 24 months.
f. The completion of construction as also the delivery of flats to Financial Creditor/Home Buyers would be done within 18 months, and in no circumstances beyond 24 months.
As has been mentioned in the Resolution plan, the benefit of the outcome of the PUFE Application would go to the creditors, who are Homebuyers. The Monitoring Committee would comply with Regulation 38(4) of the IBBI(CIRP) Regulations, 2016. The R.P. would comply with the provisions of Regulation 39(5 to 6) and 39A of IBBI(CIRP) Regulation, 2016, as also those of Section 31(3)(b) of the Code. Any failure to adhere to the plan would entail consequences.
The copy of this order would be sent to IBBI as also RoC by the Court Officer.
The application stands allowed and is disposed of.
IA-1629/ND/2024: List on 13.11.2025.