NCLAT dismisses appeals against CoC meeting notice and resolution plan approval under IBBI Regulations 21, 24, 26

NCLAT Chennai dismissed appeals challenging CoC meeting notice and resolution plan approval. Appellant claimed violations of IBBI Regulations 21, 24, and 26 regarding inadequate notice for 11th CoC meeting and e-voting procedures. Tribunal found no prejudice to appellant's legal rights despite timing changes, as appellant chose not to join the meeting link. Voting records showed Regulation 26 compliance, and RP properly presented resolution plans per Section 25(2) and Regulation 21. Distinguished Vijayakumar Jain SC precedent, noting appellant had access to resolution plan information and made no requests for copies. Appeals dismissed finding no illegality in adjudicating authority's order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Notice was issued to the Appellant regarding the 11th CoC Meeting scheduled to be held on 14/12/2022 and the change of timing from 11.30 a.m. to 3.00 p.m.
2. Whether there is any prejudice caused to the Appellant on account of not attending the 11th CoC Meeting at 3.00 p.m. and whether there was any violation of Regulations of the IBBI (Insolvency Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
3. Whether the ratio in the Judgment of 'Vijayakumar Jain Vs. Standard Chartered Bank' reported in [(2019) 20 SCC 455] is applicable to the facts of this case.

Summary:

Issue 1: Notice for the 11th CoC Meeting
The Tribunal found that the Notice for the 11th CoC Meeting scheduled on 14/12/2022 at 11.30 a.m. was sent via email to the Appellant. Despite the Appellant's claim that the change in timing was not informed, a WhatsApp conversation with the RP indicated the Appellant was aware of the time change. The minutes of the 11th CoC Meeting were reconfirmed in the 12th CoC Meeting, which the Appellant attended.

Issue 2: Prejudice and Violation of Regulations
The Tribunal examined whether any prejudice was caused to the Appellant for not attending the 11th CoC Meeting at 3.00 p.m. It was noted that the Appellant was aware of the CoC's approval of the Resolution Plan and the CIRP period extension. The RP had complied with Section 25(2) and Regulation 21 of the IBBI Regulations, ensuring that all Resolution Plans were presented at the CoC Meetings. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant was not prejudiced or legally injured by not attending the 11th CoC Meeting and found no violation of the IBBI Regulations.

Issue 3: Applicability of Vijayakumar Jain Judgment
The Tribunal addressed whether the ratio in 'Vijayakumar Jain Vs. Standard Chartered Bank' applied to this case. In 'Vijayakumar Jain,' the Appellant was denied participation in meetings and sought a direction to participate and access Resolution Plans. In the current case, the Appellant attended all CoC Meetings except the 11th, was aware of the evaluation matrix, and did not request a copy of the Resolution Plan. The Tribunal found that the facts of 'Vijayakumar Jain' did not squarely apply to the current case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that no prejudice or injury to any legal right was caused to the Appellant. The Common Impugned Order dated 05/07/2023 was upheld, and the Appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs. All connected pending interlocutory applications were closed.

---