AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
CH. MOHD SHARIEF TARIQ, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Under consideration is a “Resolution Plan”, which has been approved by the committee of creditors in relation to the corporate debtor M/s. Sri Srivathsa Paper Mills Private Limited, against which some of the stakeholders have filed objections. Therefore, before examining the “Resolution Plan”, it is necessary to deal with the objections of the stake holders, which are as follows:-
I. The objections filed by operational creditor viz., Arjun Chemicals Private limited:
It is stated by the objector/operational creditor that their Counsel had sent an e-mail dated 04.06.2019 calling upon the Resolution Professional to furnish the entire Resolution Plan, to which the Resolution Professional replied vide his e-mail dated 05.06.2019 annexing an unsigned draft “Corporate Insolvency Resolution Plan” containing a few clauses that appears to be incomplete and numbered incorrectly. It is stated that the document received vide mail dated 05.06.2019 does not even reveal the name of the Resolution Applicant and is in violation of the dictum laid down in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 82 of 2018 by Hon’ble NCLAT in Binani Industries Limited Vs Bank of Baroda &Anr.
ii) It is stated by the objector that out of the admitted claim of the Operational Creditor amounting to Rs.19,63,772/-, only an amount of Rs.2,55,290/- is proposed to be paid to the present objector. Further, one of the clauses of the Resolution Plan states that ‘all creditors except personal guarantor of the CD to withdraw all legal proceedings commenced against the CD in relation to claims, including all proceedings if any under the SARFASI and RDDBFI, within 30 days of the approval dated.” The said clause is severally discriminatory. In support of the arguments the objector/operational Creditor referred to judgment of the Hon’ble NCLAT passed in M/s. Prasad Gempex Vs Star Agro Marine Exports Ltd &Ors., in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 291 of 2018 wherein it was observed that ‘it is open to a person to file a suit or an application against the CD after completion of the period of moratorium, if the resolution plan is approved and does not take proper care of the Applicant.’ Based on this, the objector wants liberty to execute decree against the Corporate Debtor passed in O.S. No. 81/2013 by the Learned District Judge, Dindugal, even if, the Resolution Plan is approved.
iii) While controverting the objections of the operational creditor the counsels for the Resolution Applicant and the suspended directors have submitted that the contention of the objector/operational creditor to be entitled to the entire dues without adopting the hair cut method is unsustainable in law, because as per liquidation value, on allocation of the funds, the operational creditor will get 7.8% as against 13% which is being purposed in the Resolution Plan. Therefore, there is no question of giving differential treatment to the objector/operational creditor. Thus, the reply given by the counsels for the resolution applicant and suspended directors is plausible. The reference made by the objector to the order of the Hon’ble NCLAT passed in M/s. Prasad Gempex (supra) is misplaced as in that case no care was taken about the claim of the operational creditor. However, in the present case the claim of the operational creditor is taken care of. Besides this, the clause i.e., all creditors except personal guarantor of the CD to withdraw all the legal proceedings against the CD is made with a view that if the door for further litigation is kept open after approval of the resolution plan, then the same will get frustrated as the Resolution Applicant will be faced with uncertain situation which will be contrary to the objects sought to be achieved under the IBC i.e., revival of the business of the Corporate Debtor. In view of it, the objections of the objector/operational creditor are devoid of merits and stand rejected.
II. The objections filed by the State of Tamil Nadu represented by State Tax Officer:
The State Tax Officer, Government of Tamil Nadu states that vide communication dated 23.5.2019, he was informed that the Resolution Plan had approved only a sum of Rs.2,89,080/- out of a total claim of Rs.30,47,372/- (Tax of Rs.8,23,686/- and interest of Rs.22,23,686. He further contends that levy and collection of the taxes on sale or purchase in the State of Tamil Nadu is governed by TNVAT Act 2006. The Resolution Plan is so far as it provides for a haircut of 87%, contravenes the provisions of TNVAT Act, 2006.
ii) The Objector states that the order of assessment had been made for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2013-14. However, the assessment order is yet to be served in the manner prescribed under TNVAT Act 2006. Therefore, the State of Tamil Nadu is not presently pressing for the remaining sum of Rs.11,09,95,646/- (Tax Rs.5,11,48,488/- and Penalty of Rs.5,98,47,158/-) but reserves its liberty to file the claim in respect of the above sum either before the Liquidator, if the Resolution Plan fails or not approved or with the Successor/appropriate entity in terms of the Resolution Plan. Therefore, it is prayed to modify the Resolution Plan in so far as it provides for a haircut of 87% on the taxes and interest that are due to the Government under the TNVAT Act 2006 and provide for repayment of the entire amount of Rs.30,47,372/- (Tax of Rs.8,23,686/- and interest of Rs.22,23,686/-).
iii) In reply to the objections of the State Tax Officer, the counsels for the Resolution Applicant and the suspended directors have submitted that the objector has filed the claim before the Resolution Professional to the tune of Rs. 22,23,686/- on 01.02.2019 and the same was considered while passing the Resolution Plan by adopting the same hair-cut method like other operational/financial and statutory creditors. Now, the contention of the objector/operational creditor to modify the Resolution Plan in so far as it provides for a haircut of 87% on the taxes and interest that are due to the Government under the TNVAT Act 2006 and provide for repayment of the entire amount of Rs.30,47,372/- (Tax of Rs.8,23,686/- and interest of Rs.22,23,686/-), is unsustainable in law and contrary to the provisions of Section 53 of the IBC, as no stakeholder including the statutory authorities can reserve any right to collect any dues payable to them from the Resolution Applicant apart from the funds earmarked in the Resolution Plan. Further, it has been placed on record that the Resolution Professional has rejected a claim of Rs. 11,09,95,646/- which was made on 19.06.2019 on the ground of its being filed belatedly and after approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC. The Resolution Applicant has submitted that a claim of tax amounting to Rs. 11,09,95,646/- is fictitious as the same is not supported by any actual transactions. In other words, the claim is based on presumptive assessment basis on reverse mechanism instead of verifying all the documents submitted by the CD on 18.02.2018. It is further stated that once the period 2009-10 and 2010-11 has been assessed on 02.05.2013 and tax was claimed, the property was attached, it is not proper for Commercial Tax Department to re-asses for the same year on 30.05.2019 being barred by limitation under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, as decided in WP No. 9500 of 2015 and WP No. 11954 -11957 of 2018. Besides this, the Resolution Applicant has pointed out that the claim is made on extraneous consideration. In view of it, the submissions made by the Counsels for the Resolution Applicant and the suspended directors appear to be correct, the fresh claim of the CT department being flawed and time barred stands rejected.
III. The objections filed by TANGEDCO:
It is recalled that initially the TANGEDCO vide its letter dated 06.03.2019 sent by the Superintending Engineer, Dindigul, informed the Resolution Professional that an amount of Rs. 82,32,871/- as current consumption charges are payable by the Corporate Debtor and Rs. 80,32,790/- as security deposit is available with them for the HT Service No. 311. The RP has sent a letter on 25.03.2019 to TANGEDCO informing that their claim was considered and allocation of funds is made like other operational creditors with a hair-cut of 87% by providing a sum of Rs. 10,70,273/- in the Resolution Plan. The deposit amounting to Rs. 80,32,790/- lying with TANGEDCO has been treated as assets of the Corporate Debtor
ii) On receipt of the above communication, the superintending Engineer, Dindigul has sent one more letter dated 06.06.2019 informing the Resolution Professional that they have adjusted the CC charges against the deposits held with them and showed a new available deposit balance of Rs.2,49,412/- only.
iii) Now, the objector TANGEDCO claims that prior to the declaration of Moratorium, the total arrears of Rs. 76,83,228/- is adjusted against the available balance CCD of Rs. 80,32,790/- at the time of account closing of the service due to termination of the Agreement and requested to pay the total arrears of Rs. 76,83,228/- in one lum-sum and the connection will be made only after payment. Based on this, the objector/TANGEDCO has contended that this fact was not placed before the IRP, which created misperception and accordingly prayed to revise the Resolution Plan.
iv) From the above, it can safely be concluded that the objector/TANGEDCO has taken a contradictory stand, as after approval of the Resolution Plan, the Resolution Professional has been informed vide letter dated 06.06.2019 about the adjustment of the deposits. Had it been so, the superintending engineer at the time of filing the 1st claim i.e., on 01.02.2019, could have brought the fact of adjustment of the deposit to the knowledge of the Resolution Professional. The contention with regard to the adjustment of the deposit and filing of 2nd claim after approval of the Resolution Plan is afterthought, which cannot be a base for re-opening the Resolution Plan. Therefore, the contention of the objector/TANGEDCO is flawed and stands rejected. The TANGEDCO is directed to connect the power supply [H.T.SC.No.311] immediately to the Corporate Debtor and also at its pump house situated at SF No.50/2, 901 of Manoor village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District, on receipt of the payment provided in the Resolution Plan.
IV. The objections filed by ESI Corporation:
It is stated that the outstanding dues amounting to Rs 20,48,611/- were intimated to the Resolution Professional vide ESIC, Madurai, Letter (in FORM F) dated 15.03.2019 to which the Resolution Professional has replied vide his letter dt.23.05.2019 that out of the claim amount of Rs.20,48,611/-, only an amount of Rs.2,66,319/- would be payable to ESI Corporation. The letter further contained that on receipt of the said amount of Rs.2,66,319/- the ESI Corporation will close all the pending cases / proceedings against the company. It is contended that as per Section 94 of the ESI Act, the contributions etc., due to the ESI Corporation will have priority over other debts, in the case of such insolvent proceedings, so the claim amount of Rs.20,48,611/- should be paid fully to the ESI Corporation. In relation to the objection raised by the ESIC, the counsel for the Resolution Applicant has submitted that the contention of the objector/operational creditor to be entitled to the entire dues without adopting the hair cut method is unsustainable in law, the ESIC is entitled to get the due payable to them in the same haircut method approved for other operational/ financial and statutory creditors. An identical issue was raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No(s) 6438, 2018 titled PR. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd., wherein Apex Court has been observed as under:
"Given Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code 2016, it is obvious that the Code will override anything in consistent contained in any other enactment, including the Income Tax Act."
ii) Further, in another matter titled M/s. Innovative Industries Limited vs. ICICI Bank and Anr., (Civil Appeal Nos. 8337-8338 of 2017) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that ‘it is clear that later non-obstante clause of the parliamentary enactment will also prevails over the limited non-obstante contained in Section 4 of Maharashtra Act.’ Their lordships have further recorded that for the said reasons they are of the view that the Maharashtra Act cannot stand in the way of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Code. Therefore, I&B Code, 2016 will override anything inconsistent contained in ESI Act, 1948. In view of it, the stand taken by the Resolution Applicant is correct. Therefore, the plea taken by the counsel for the ESI is devoid of merits and stands rejected.
V. The objections filed by the Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore:
The Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore has filed objections on 18.06.2019 stating therein that the Corporate Debtor viz., M/s Sri Srivathsa Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. has filed the Return of Income (RoI) only for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12, and thereafter, has not filed any RoI till date. The RoI for AY’s 2010-11 and 2011-12 showed losses of Rs.5,16,20,298/- and Rs.9,44,95,480/- respectively, thereby totaling Rs.14,61,15,778/-. It is further, stated that Section 80 clearly bars the benefit of carry forward of losses when return is not filed under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In support of his contention reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Haryana Hotels Ltd. reported in [{(2005}197CTR(P&H)449] wherein it was held that the mandate under Section 80 is that the losses under Sections 72(1), 73(2), 74(1), 74(2) and 74(3) if not determined in pursuance of a return filed, shall not be carried forward and set off. Based on the ruling it is stated that the loss cannot be carried forward beyond 8 years unless provided in the exceptions as per provisions of the Act.
ii) In reply to the objections filed by the Income Tax officer, Coimbatore, the Resolution Applicant has submitted that law permits an assesse to file Income Tax returns with an application for condonation of delay and if necessary, on payment of penalty for belated filing of return after seeking permission of the competent authority as per Section 32(2) of the IT Act. It is further contended that the Resolution Applicant is considering the Corporate Debtor as a reviving industry and has submitted the 'Resolution Plan' for on-going concern and is entitled for the benefit of the carry forward losses, that is very useful to sustain the industry as one of the profit making industry in future, which is the main object of the Resolution Process under the IBC, 2016.
iii) The counsel for the suspended board of directors has submitted that in terms of the decision given in 276 ITR 521, which has been referred by the Income Tax officer, it has clearly been recorded by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana that the assesse is entitled to claim carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation for the earlier years, even if no valid returns for the said period have been filed. In view of it, the Resolution Applicant is directed to seek the permission of the competent authority to file the ROIs for the relevant assessment years for which the returns have not been filed for availing the benefit of carry forward of losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Further, it is already noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No(s) 6438, 2018 titled PR. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) has held that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 will override anything in consistent contained in the Income Tax Act. In view of it the objections raised by the Income Tax officer stand rejected.
After rejection of the objections as above, this Authority proceeds to examine the 'Resolution Plan' passed by the CoC of the corporate debtor viz., M/s. Sri Srivathsa Paper Mills Private Limited. In this connection a Miscellaneous Application under No. 484/2019 has been filed in CP/762/IB/2018 by the Resolution Professional viz., Mr. Arumugam Arumugam as provided by the provisions of Section 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (in short 'I&B Code, 2016').
The prayers made by the Resolution Professional are as follows:-
i)Approve and give effect to the resolution plan submitted by the successful resolution applicant being the 2nd respondent herein and / or
ii) Pass such other orders or further orders in this regard as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.
Initially, CP/762/IB/2018 was filed under Section 7 of I&B Code, 2016 read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 by M/s Asset Reconstructions Company India Ltd., (in short, 'Financial Creditor') against M/s. Sri Srivathsa Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd., (in short, 'Corporate Debtor'). CP/762/IB/2018 has been admitted on 13.11.2018, under which CIR Process was initiated against the Corporate Debtor, moratorium was declared, the Applicant was appointed as IRP on 14.12.2018 and thereafter, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) confirmed the Applicant as RP to conduct the CIR Process.
It is averred that the Corporate Debtor was incorporated as a private limited company and has its registered office at 2nd Floor, 1-5, Sreevathsa Square, Mettupalayam Road, Vellakinar, Coimbatore-641034. The Corporate Debtor is engaged in Manufacturing of Paper and Paper products. The Corporate Debtor also owns inter alia properties/equipment such as i) Land of 68.75 Acres (9 Acres of Factory land with 4 sides compound walls) ii) Building of 74,000 Sq.ft iii) 50 Ton per day capacity of Plant and Machinery with all the sequence of machines & Infrastructure machines such as Transformers, Boilers, Effluent Treatment Plant etc. iv) 1 Tractor and 1 Bull loading vehicles, v) 2 Acres of agricultural land with well & pump house and pipe lines of around 8 K.M. running from Manur village to factory.
It is contended that the Resolution Professional on 26.1.2019 published an Advertisement seeking Expression of Interest (“EoI”) from prospective Resolution Applicant for submitting the Resolution Plan for the Corporate Debtor and had complied with the statutory requirements in receiving claims, collating the same, conducting the CIR Process by taking possession of the assets, valuing the assets, re-verification of the claims, protecting and preserving the assets of the Corporate Debtor.
The Applicant states that pursuant to the publication, the Applicant received six “EoI”, Out of it, the Resolution Professional received two Resolution Plans on 25.3.2019 and 27.3.2019 respectively. The details of the Eligibility Criteria and Resolution Applicants are as follows:
| Particulars | Net Worth | Turnover |
|---|---|---|
| Eligibility Criteria (As fixed by the Committee of Creditors for Prospective Resolution Applicants as per EOI as per the last audited financials) | Rs 5 Crores | Rs.15 Crores in the last 3 years |
| M/s. SB HOMES, Chennai | 51.65 Crores | 41 Crores |
| M/s Hi Tech Bio Products, Chennai | 18.16 Crores | 48.92 Crores |
It is stated that during the 5th Meeting of CoC held on 22.04.2019, the Applicant had physically circulated a copy of the Resolution Plans along with Resolution Professional's certificate of compliance of Section 30 (2) of the Code and placed both the Plans before the CoC for their deliberations. The CoC members had a detailed discussion with the representatives of both the Resolution Applicants in relation to their Resolution Plans. The CoC members after having reviewed the plans, noted the scores obtained by both the Resolution Plans and requested the Resolution Applicants to revise their Plans, as suggested. Subsequently, 2nd Respondent viz., M/s Hi Tech Bio Products, Chennai alone had submitted its revised Resolution Plan in the 6th Meeting of the CoC held on 26.4.2019. The Resolution Plan submitted by M/s Hi Tech Bio Products, Chennai, was put to vote on 01.05.2019 and approved with 100% (e-voting) by the CoC. The financial snapshot of the Resolution Plan submitted by Resolution Applicant viz., M/s. Hi Tech Bio Products, in a tabular column is as follows:
| Sr. No. | Particulars | Amounts Admitted (in Rs) | Amounts Proposed (in Rs) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CIRP Costs (upto the approval date) | 10,00,000 | 10,00,000 |
| 2 | Workmen Dues and Employees Dues | NIL | NIL |
| 2 (a) | Workmen Dues | NIL | NIL |
| 2 (b) | Employees Dues | NIL | NIL |
| 3 | Financial Creditors | NIL | NIL |
| 3 (a) | Indian Overseas Bank | NIL | NIL |
| 3 (b) | Other Financial Creditors Asset Reconstructions Company India Ltd | 153,43,81,328 | 20,50,00,000 |
| 4 | Operational Creditors (Other than employees, workmen, statutory authorities) | 1,30,79,866 | 17,00,383 |
| 5 | Other than Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors (including statutory authorities) | 23,24,603 | 3,02,198 |
| 6 | Working Capital | 10,50,00,000 | |
| Total | 155,07,85,797 | 31,30,02,581 |
Analysis and approval of Resolution Plan:
The 'Resolution Plan' provides for the key Financial Proposals for the total infusion of Rs.20,80,02,581/- (Rupees Twenty Cores Eighty Lakhs Two Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty One) for the equity share capital of the company to settle the Secured and Operational Creditors as follows:-
| S.No | Name of Creditor | Accepted Claiming Rs | Proposed Amount Paid Rs. | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CIRP Cost | 10,00,000/- | 10,00,000/- | Paid date of approval resolution plan by NCLT |
| 2 | Asset Reconstruction Company of India (ARCIL) – Financial Creditor | 153,43,81,328/- | 20,50,00,000/- 15,37,50,000/- (date of approval of resolution plan by NCLT) 5,12,50,000/- (immediately post 45 days post, approval of the Resolution Plan) | In case of any appeal against the order of approval of the Resolution Plan, the second trench of payment shall be made after extinguishment of all appealable Rights. |
| 3 | Arjun Chemicals Ltd-Operational Creditor | 19,63,772/- | 2,55,290/- (immediately post 45 days post approval of the Resolution Plan) | Paid out propionate to the Liquidation Value |
| 4 | A. Subrammaniam | 29,537/- | 3,840/- (immediately post 45 days post approval of the Resolution Plan) | Paid out propionate to the Liquidation Value |
| 5 | A.C Commercial Taxes, Palani Government Dues | 22,23,686/- (8,23,686+ compounded interest @ 18%, Rs. 14,00,000/-) | 2,89,080/- (immediately post 45 days post approval of resolution plan) | Paid out propionate to the Liquidation Value and attachment to be lifted |
| 6 | Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madurai | 20,48,611/- | 2,66,319/- (immediately post 45 days post approval of resolution plan) | |
| 7 | Local Tax - Thalayuthu Panchyat | 6,30,000/- | 81,900/- (immediately post 45 days post approval of resolution plan) | |
| 8 | Superintending Engineer D.E.D.C / Dindigul-2 TENGEDO | 82,32,871/- (Form F not submitted) | 10,70,273/- (immediately post 45 days post approval of resolution plan) | Supply to be given to run the factory |
| 9 | D.E.E – TNPCB Dindigul | 2,75,992/- | 35,879/- (immediately post 45 days post approval of resolution plan) | Consent to be renewed Immediately |
However, it is made clear that as per the proposal of the resolution applicant, the estimated cost for implementation of the Resolution Plan is Rs. 21,66,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty one Crores Sixty Six Lakhs only) including a reserve of Rs. 85,97,419/- (Rupees Eighty five lakhs ninety seven thousand four hundred and nineteen only). The proposal to raise the funds is as follows:
| S.N | Particulars | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| a. | Share Application money will be brought in by the Resolution Applicant, his spouse and associated concerns. | 21.66 Crores |
| b. | Amount Payable to Financial Creditor and Operational Creditor and Statutory dues etc., (After Plan Approval) | 21.66 Cores |
| c. | For revamping, Refurbishment of all machineries plus trial run expenses. | 2.50 Crores |
| d. | Term Loan from Bank of Baroda (working capital requirement) | 2.50 Crores |
| e. | From Bank as Cash Credit Limit. | 8.00 Cores |
| f. | From Resolution Applicant | 2.00 Cores |
Note:- It is planned to obtain cash credit limit from Bank of Baroda as the Resolution Applicant has previously got approved credit limits with the bank with respect to an another papers industry which was dropped due to low technical viability.
Management and Control of the corporate debtor:
It is mentioned in the plan that that on payment of all dues under the Resolution Plan, the Resolution Applicant and its nominees shall be the sole shareholder of the entire shareholding of the Corporate Debtor and will own, control, operate and manage the Corporate Debtor and its assets at its sole discretion. The role of the Resolution Professional shall cease to exist on completion of the implementation of the Resolution Plan. The Resolution Applicant will appoint such qualified person as may be required and appropriate in its opinion, for managing and conducting the day to day operations of the Corporate Debtor.
The “Resolution Plan’ offered by the Resolution Applicant viz., M/s. High Tech Bio Products, seeks Extinguishment of Claims, Concessions, Dispensation and Reliefs. In this connection, it is specifically noted that from its (plan) approval date, all inquiries, investigation and proceedings, whether civil or criminal, suits, claims, disputes, proceedings in connection with the Corporate Debtor or affairs of the Corporate Debtor, pending or threatened, present or future in relation to any period prior to the Plan approval date, or arising on account of implementation of this Resolution Plan shall deemed to have been waived, withdrawn and dismissed. This is with a view to implement the Resolution Plan successfully as approved by the CoC, so that the Corporate Debtor be put on the track of business again without facing any hardship. Further, the approval stands granted for reduction of the capital as contemplated under the resolution plan without requiring compliance with the provisions of Sec 66(1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 2013.
It is noted that the Resolution Professional has filed Compliance Certificate in Form H as required under Regulation 39 (4) of the Code. Pursuant to the meeting of the CoC held on 26.4.2019 (e-voting dated 01.05.2019), the Resolution Professional issued the letter of intent to the successful Resolution Applicant viz., M/s. Hi Tech Bio Products and the Resolution Applicant had furnished the Performance Bank Guarantee as required under Sub- Regulation (4A) of Regulation 36B of the Code. The Resolution Applicant had also paid the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- in terms of the Resolution Plan.
Thus, the ‘Resolution Plan’ filed with the Application meets the requirements of Section 30(2) of I&B Code, 2016 and Regulations 37, 38, 38(1A) and 39 (4) of IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016. The ‘Resolution Plan’ is also not in contravention of any of the provisions of Section 29A. The Resolution Professional has also certified that the “Resolution Plan” approved by the CoC’s does not contravene any of the provisions of the law for the time being in force. The Compliance Certificate is placed at pages 32 to 35 of the typed set filed with the Application.
In view of the above, the ‘Resolution Plan’ annexed with MA/484/IB/2019 filed in CP/762/IB/2018 is hereby approved, which shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan including Resolution Applicant.
While approving the ‘Resolution Plan’, as mentioned above, it is clarified that the Resolution Applicant shall pursuant to the Resolution Plan approved under Sub- section (1) of Section 31 of the I&B Code, 2016, obtain all the necessary approval as may be required under any law for the time being in force within a period of one year from the date of approval of the Resolution Plan by this authority or within such period as provided for in such law.
The order of moratorium dated 13.11.2018 passed by this Adjudicating Authority under Section 14 of I&B Code, 2016 shall ceased to have effect from the date of passing of this Order.
The Resolution Professional shall forward all record relating to the conduct of the CIRP and the ‘Resolution Plan’ to the IBBI, so that the Board may record the same on its data-base.
The approved 'Resolution Plan' shall become effective from the date of passing of this Order.
The Resolution Professional shall forthwith send a copy of this Order to the participants and the Resolution Applicant.
The Order is pronounced in the open court.