AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
12.02.2025 Heard Mr. Ramesh Singh Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Ms. Pooja Mahajan for the Respondent.
This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.09.2024 in I.A. No. 431 of 2024 along with I.A. No. 6175 of 2023 by which order the Adjudicating Authority has directed for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.
The brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding the appeal are that CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced on 08.03.2019. The Committee of Creditors approved the Resolution Plan on September, 2019 and the application was submitted for approval of the resolution plan before the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant has filed an application for withdrawal of the resolution plan before the Adjudicating Authority in the year 2021 which remain pending ultimately the Adjudicating Authority passed an order
approving the Resolution Plan by an order dated 18.08.2023.
Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ramesh Singh submits that he has withdrawn the application for withdrawal in the year 2023. After the aforesaid plan approval, the RP communicated that the PBG was invoked on 17.11.2023 on plan being not implementing. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that he has filed the application on 16.11.2023 before the invocation. Be as it may in the application which was filed by the Appellant,
the following prayers were made by the Appellant:
“a)Allow the present Application and provide clarification with regard to payment of CIRP Cost over and above the amount provisioned in the resolution plan dated 17 September 2019;
b)Direct the Respondent to give the details of the CIRP cost as claimed by him on affidavit;
c)Grant extension in timeline to the Applicant in implementation of the Resolution Plan;
d)Pass any other order(s) that this Ld. Adjudicating Authority may deem fir and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has rejected the application and directed for liquidation.
Mr. Ramesh Singh Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant challenging the order submits that in the resolution plan which was approved the CIRP cost was mentioned only 50 lakhs and hence the claim of Rs. 2.18 crores as CIRP cost was excessive and could not have been implemented. This was due the above reason that appellant could not implement the plan, although the Appellant is still willing to implement the plan.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the plan was approved in 2019 and in the year 2021 the Appellant filed an application to withdraw the plan due to which two years period was elapsed and then ultimately on 18th August 2023 the plan was approved by Adjudicating Authority. It is further submitted that during the period 2019 to 2023 the CIRP cost had obviously to increase on account of the Corporate Debtor being run, there being security charges and other expenses. Hence, with regard to CIRP cost which was communicated in 2023, it could not have been estimated in the year 2019 when the plan was approved.
We have considered submission of Counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the facts of the case is clear that the present is a case were CIRP commenced on 08.03.2019 and the CoC has approved the resolution plan on 17.09.2019. After the approval of the plan by Adjudicating Authority on 18.08.2023, the plan could not be implemented due to the reason as contended by the Appellant and the application was filed seeking various reliefs as noted above. The Adjudicating Authority has directed for liquidation after rejecting the I.A. filed by the Appellant and allowing the I.A. No. 431 of 2024 filed by the RP seeking liquidation. The substantial period has already elapsed and the plan have not been implemented.
We are of the view that the reasons sought to be given by the Appellant for non-implementation the plan cannot be sufficient ground to interfere with order of liquidation which has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The plan having not been implemented, we are of the view that the reasons for non-implementation cannot be ground for appellant to seek reliefs as claimed in the application. In so far as the CIRP cost which was informed to the Appellant after the approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, that could have been challenged before the Adjudicating Authority. However, we are of the view that since liquidation has already been directed it is for the liquidator to take a call on the cost as claimed before the liquidator and we in this appeal are not required to express any opinion with regard to the amount of the CIRP cost, which may be issue to be examined in the liquidation proceeding. We thus, are of the view that present is a not a case where the liquidation directed by the impugned order need interference by this Tribunal. Appeal is dismissed.