Tribunal Denies Application, Upholds Resolution Plan Compliance

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reason to grant relief. It concluded that the Resolution Professional (RP) complied with regulations, the resolution plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), and met legal requirements. The applicant's request for revaluation, sending back the plan to CoC, submitting a settlement plan, and alleging collusion were all denied. The Tribunal noted the applicant's failure to cooperate and the RP's transparent conduct. The applicant was advised of alternative remedies under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for appealing the resolution plan.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Revaluation of the Corporate Debtor.
2. Sending back the current resolution plan to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for enhancement or reconsideration.
3. Allowing the applicant to submit a settlement plan and initiate withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
4. Allegations of collusion between the Resolution Professional (RP) and the Resolution Applicant.
5. Compliance with the provisions of the IBC and related regulations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Revaluation of the Corporate Debtor:
The applicant argued that the valuation of the Corporate Debtor was significantly diminished since the hospital was not functioning at the time of valuation. The applicant contended that the hospital is now fully operational and treating Covid-19 patients, which should be taken into account. The RP, however, had appointed two valuers who computed the fair and liquidation values, and these values were not significantly different. The Tribunal found that the RP had complied with the valuation standards and regulations, and thus, revaluation was not warranted.

2. Sending Back the Current Resolution Plan to CoC:
The applicant claimed that the current resolution plan did not maximize the value of the Corporate Debtor’s assets and proposed sending it back to the CoC for enhancement. The RP countered that the plan was approved by the CoC with 100% voting rights and was compliant with the IBC. The Tribunal noted that the RP had taken all necessary steps as per the IBBI Regulations and that no other interested parties had come forward with a better resolution plan. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the request to send back the resolution plan to the CoC.

3. Allowing Submission of a Settlement Plan and Withdrawal of CIRP:
The applicant sought permission to submit a settlement plan and initiate withdrawal of the CIRP under Section 12A of the IBC. The RP highlighted the non-cooperation from the suspended Board of Directors and the failure to submit any settlement plan despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal observed that the applicant had ample time to submit a settlement plan but failed to do so. Given the time-bound nature of the CIRP and the lack of diligence from the applicant, the Tribunal denied this request.

4. Allegations of Collusion:
The applicant alleged collusion between the RP and the Resolution Applicant to take over the Corporate Debtor for the lowest possible consideration. The RP refuted these allegations, stating that the valuation and resolution plan processes were conducted transparently and in compliance with the IBC. The Tribunal found no merit in the allegations of collusion, noting that the RP had maintained confidentiality and followed due process.

5. Compliance with IBC Provisions:
The Tribunal examined whether the RP had complied with the provisions of the IBC and related regulations. It was found that the RP had adhered to the requirements of Regulation 27 and 35 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The CoC had approved the resolution plan with 100% voting rights, and the plan met the requirements of Sub-Section (2) of Section 30 of the IBC. The Tribunal concluded that the RP had followed all necessary procedures, and the resolution plan was in compliance with the IBC.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the application MA (IBC)/01/KOB/2021, finding no cogent reason to grant any relief sought by the applicant. The RP had complied with all relevant regulations and procedures, and the resolution plan was approved by the CoC and met the legal requirements. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had alternative remedies available under Section 61(3) of the IBC to appeal against the resolution plan. The application was dismissed without costs.

---