Tribunal overturns order, criticizes RP's actions, directs CoC to consider pre-08/12/2020 plans. Appeal allowed, interim order absolute.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 07.05.2021, declaring it illegal and without proper application of mind. The RP's actions were criticized, and the Tribunal directed the CoC to consider only plans submitted before 12.08.2020. The appeal was allowed, the interim order dated 23.06.2021 was made absolute, and pending applications were closed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Impugned Order dated 07.05.2021 by the Adjudicating Authority.
2. Allegations against the Resolution Professional (RP) regarding the handling of the CIRP process.
3. Applicability and interpretation of the amendment to Regulation 39(3) of the IBBI Regulations, 2016.
4. Confidentiality and procedural lapses in the CIRP process.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Impugned Order dated 07.05.2021 by the Adjudicating Authority:
The Appellants filed an appeal against the order dated 07.05.2021, which rejected their I.A. No. 606 of 2020. The Appellants argued that their Resolution Plan was declared as H1 bidder by the CoC, and the RP's subsequent actions to invite final compliant plans were beyond the scope of the IBC and IBBI Regulations. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority misinterpreted the regulations and failed to consider the minutes of the CoC meeting held on 12.08.2020, which were crucial for proper adjudication. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was illegal and without proper application of mind.

2. Allegations against the Resolution Professional (RP) regarding the handling of the CIRP process:
The Appellants accused the RP of misguiding the CoC and misinterpreting the amended regulations to call for fresh resolution plans. The RP's actions, including sharing confidential information and accommodating another Resolution Applicant, were seen as suspicious and contrary to the IBC provisions. The Tribunal noted that the RP failed to produce the minutes of the CoC meeting dated 12.08.2020, which raised doubts about the RP's conduct. The Tribunal deprecated the RP's actions and drew adverse inferences against him.

3. Applicability and interpretation of the amendment to Regulation 39(3) of the IBBI Regulations, 2016:
The Tribunal examined the amendment to Regulation 39(3) effective from 07.08.2020, which mandates simultaneous voting on all compliant resolution plans. The Tribunal clarified that the amendment does not authorize the RP to call for fresh resolution plans beyond the stipulated time. The RP's interpretation of the amendment to invite final compliant plans was deemed a misinterpretation and an act of contempt. The Tribunal emphasized that the amendment is intended to evaluate and vote on plans received within the specified time, not to call for new plans.

4. Confidentiality and procedural lapses in the CIRP process:
The Appellants raised concerns about the confidentiality of their Resolution Plan, which was compromised when the RP opened the plan in a virtual meeting. The Tribunal acknowledged the Appellants' concerns and highlighted the RP's failure to maintain confidentiality. The Tribunal also noted procedural lapses, such as the RP's failure to provide crucial documents like the minutes of the CoC meeting, which affected the fairness of the process.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 07.05.2021 and declared the RP's letter dated 13.08.2021 as illegal and non-est. The Tribunal directed the CoC to consider only the plans submitted prior to 12.08.2020 and proceed in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed, and the interim order dated 23.06.2021 was made absolute. No costs were ordered, and any pending applications were closed.

---