TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal Upholds Adjudicating Authority's Decision on Resolution Plan Modifications</h1> <h3>Ajay Gupta Versus Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma RP of M/s. B.B. Foods Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to allow modifications to a resolution plan by various applicants, ensuring a fair ... Modification of Resolution Plan - Case of appellant is that, the modifications of the Applicant’s plan were known to everyone hence no opportunity ought to have been given to others to modify their plan - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that for not to disturb level playing field, the other resolution applicants were also permitted to give modifications of the resolution plan. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Regulation 39(1A) as amended on 30th September, 2021 was not applicable and Resolution Professional has wrongly said that said Regulation is applicable. There are no justification to enter into the said issue and give any decision with regard to the above in the facts of the present case. Appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Appeal against Order dated 13th December, 2021 in CP No. (IB) 349/ALD/2018.2. Consideration of modifications to resolution plan by Adjudicating Authority.3. Applicability of Regulation 39(1A) as amended on 30th September, 2021.Analysis:1. The Appellate Tribunal heard the appeal against the Order dated 13th December, 2021, where the Adjudicating Authority directed the applicant to place affidavits and modifications for consideration by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The Adjudicating Authority's decision aimed to maintain a level playing field by allowing other resolution applicants to also modify their plans within 48 hours. The appellant argued that since modifications were known to everyone, others should not have been given the opportunity to modify their plans. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's decision to allow modifications by other applicants.2. The Respondent, represented by an advocate, confirmed that the applicant submitted the plan on 15th December, 2021, which was considered by the CoC on 21st December, 2021. The Tribunal acknowledged this submission without finding any fault in the process. The appellant's counsel raised an issue regarding the applicability of Regulation 39(1A) as amended on 30th September, 2021. The counsel argued that the Resolution Professional incorrectly applied this regulation. However, the Tribunal declined to address this issue in the present case, stating that there was no justification to delve into this matter further.3. After a comprehensive analysis of the arguments presented, the Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and subsequently dismissed it. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining a fair and transparent process in insolvency proceedings, ensuring that all resolution applicants have an equal opportunity to modify their plans for consideration by the CoC. The decision emphasized the Adjudicating Authority's discretion in managing the resolution process and upheld the principle of equity among competing resolution applicants.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
