AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
28.07.2025: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1101 of 2025 has been filed by the Resolution Applicant challenging the order dated 18.07.2025 passed in IA No.5883/2024 filed by applicant by which order the Adjudicating Authority has rejected the IA No.5883/2024 by which applicant has prayed for direction to consider its revised third bid and his plan to be considered according to the revised third bid submitted by the Appellant in the challenge process.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1103 of 2025 has been filed by the Resolution Professional challenging order dated 18.07.2025 to the limited extend by which the Adjudicating Authority has directed to maintain the status quo till 29.07.2025.
We have heard Sh. Navin Pahwa, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1101 of 2025, Shri Krishnendu Datta, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1103 of 2025 and Shri N. Venkataraman, learned senior counsel appearing for the CoC.
Shri Pahwa, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant’s bid in the first round of the challenge was the highest bid, hence, he has to be given opportunity to submit revised bid for the third round. He submits that his first bid was 91.37, which was the highest, hence, he was not obliged to participate in the second round and in the third round he gave bid of 92.97. He submits that the bid submitted in the third round was delayed by three minutes, hence, the Resolution Professional did not accept the bid under the instructions of the CoC. Application was filed by Appellant being IA No. 5883/2024 seeking direction to the Resolution Professional and CoC to accept the bid which was given by the Appellant in the third round, which application has been rejected.
The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has taken a view that when all bids were to be considered in the timeline as provided in the challenge process, the third bid which was submitted by the Appellant under those timelines has rightly not been accepted by the Resolution Professional and CoC. The COC having taken a consensus decision to follow the timelines, no error be set in passing the said order.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
There is no dispute to the fact that the bid given in the third round by the Appellant was delayed by three minutes. The challenge process was process which was controlled by timelines with regard to first round, second round and third round. When the bid in third round given by the Appellant was beyond timelines, no right can be claim by the Appellant that his bid in the third round has to be considered. However, there is no dispute between the parties that in the first round the Appellant was treated as H-1 Bidder and he also submitted the Resolution Plan accordingly. The CoC is yet to vote on the different Resolution Plans including the plan submitted by the Appellant in the first round. Even if, the bid given by the Appellant in third round is not accepted, there is no inhibition in the CoC to consider the plan of the Appellant as per the bid given in the first round as well as the plans given by other participants who participated in the challenge process. In the RFRP, it is the CoC who is endowed by all powers to consider any plan or not. The fact that any Applicant is H-1 bidder does not oblige the CoC to approve the Resolution Plan. The CoC is fully entitled to negotiate with one or all Resolution Applicants.
We thus are of view that no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in not accepting the prayers made in application I.A. No.5883/2024. We, however, observe that the Resolution Plan of the Appellant as per his first bid may be considered by the CoC after necessary compliance as indicated by the Resolution Professional. In view of the aforesaid, we see no reason to interfere in the impugned order. We dispose of the Appeal observing that the resolution plan in accordance with the first bid submitted by the Appellant after necessary compliance be considered by the CoC along with other compliant plans available for consideration. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.1101 of 2025 is disposed of accordingly.
In view of order passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.1101 of 2025, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.1103 of 2025 has become infructuous. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.1103 of 2025 is dismissed as infructuous.