AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
22.01.2026 Heard Learned Counsel for Appellant and Shri Sandeep Bajaj, appearing for the Resolution Professional.
This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 28/11/2025 passed in I.A. No 855 of 2025 and I.A. No 1187 of 2025 which was filed by the Appellant, the promoter of Corporate debtor raising various objection to the Resolution Plan which has been approved by the Committee of Creditors (COC) and is pending consideration before the Adjudicating Authority. Shri Deora submitted that Appellant who is a promoter, entitled to participate in the proceedings of the Committee of Creditors (COC) was not permitted to participate from 14th COC meeting to 18th COC meeting with regard to which objection has been raised, and has been rejected.
It is further submitted that the claim of the creditors, as reflected in the website before the IBBI, they do not find correct reflection in the Resolution Plan submitted by SRA.
It is further submitted that there is no clarity with regard to EMD whether it is 5 crores or 5.5 crores. He submitted that objections raised by the Appellant were required to be considered and allowed.
Shri Bajaj, Ld Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the Appellant himself had submitted a settlement proposal which was being considered by the COC hence there being conflict of interest, he was not permitted to participate in the said meetings and in fact, he himself excused form the said meeting and never raised any objection till the Plan was approved by the COC.
He further submitted that there is no inconsistency between the claim which were admitted and claim which were reflected in that Resolution Plan of the SRA.
In so far as the submission of the EMB is concerned, he submitted that Expression of Interest (EOI) was Rs. 50,00,000/- and 5 crores with regard to the Resolution Plan and there was no dispute with regard to the above fact.
We have considered submission of the Counsels for Parties and perused the record. In so far as the submission of the Appellant, that he was not permitted to participate in the COC Mtg, 14th to 18th. The reasons advanced is that the Appellant had submitted Settlement proposal and there was a Conflict of Interest, hence was not permitted participation by promoters. Any stakeholder who have conflict of interest can be asked not to participate and so far as the submissions of the Appellant that the amount of creditors claim admitted as reflected in the IBBI website is not being reflected in the Plan of the Resolution Application. We are of the view that the Plan being still under consideration before the Adjudicating Authority, Adjudicating Authority is to look into the issue as to whether the Plan complies with Section 30 (2) of the IBC as well as the CIRP Regulation 2016. The Plan is to be approved by the Adjudicating Authority on satisfaction with the Statutory Compliances. With these observations, we thus, are of the view that in so far as the above aspect, Adjudicating Authority shall consider while considering the Plan Approval Application.
As far as the EMD is concerned, it has been clarified and has also been observed in the Impugned Order by the Adjudicating Authority that EOI Rs. 50,00,000/- along with EMD of Rs. 5,00,00,000 was to be deposited along with the Plan, which observation has been made by the Adjudicating Authority, in Paragraph II(f) of the impugned order.
We thus, do not find any error in the order or any ground to interfere in the order by this Appeal.
We, however observe that Plan approval application shall be considered on its own merits and Adjudication Authority shall consider as to whether Plan complies with section 30(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016.
With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.
Appeal Dismissed.