TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 679
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, Sr. Advocate with Mr Karan Kanwar, Mr Sikhar Singh, Advocates JUDGMENT PER; V. P. SINGH, MEMBER (T) 1. This Appeal has been filed against the Impugned Judgment dated 30th January, 2020 passed by NCLT Cuttack Bench in CA (IB) No. 160/CTB/2019 whereby the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the Application filed by the Appellant for seeking intervention and directions for reconsideration of its Resolution Plan before accepting the resolution plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant, mechanically without appreciating the submissions of the Appellant. 2. Appellant contends that the Adjudicating Authority has failed to exercise its power under Section 31 of the Code which mandates that the Adjudicating Authority ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt immediately applied Rule 11 of the NCLT Rule read with Section 60(5) of the IBC seeking intervention in the matter and further directions to the COC to reconsider the Resolution Plan of the Appellant on merits and approve the resolution plan being the most viable on quantitative and qualitative parameters. But the Adjudicating Authority vide the impugned order rejected the Application which is under challenge in this Appeal. 5. It is essential to mention that the Resolution Applicant has no vested right that his Resolution Plan must be considered. It is settled position of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2019) 2 SCC 1 in case of Arcelor Mittal India Pvt Ltd Satish Kumar Gupta that the resolution applicant does not have a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Plan which has duly been done in the 31st meeting of the CoC and is reflected in the minutes of the meeting. It is also contended by the Respondent that the evaluation criteria for evaluating the Resolution Plan taken into consideration various financial and non-financial criteria including the equity infusion to continue to manage the corporate debtor as a going concern. After assessing both the resolution plans on the evaluation matrix, the CoC has scored STPL plan higher and approved the same. 10. The Respondent further contends that the CoC has duly considered the payments being made to Operational Creditors before exercise of its commercial decision to vote in favour of STPL's resolution plan which is, non-justiciable as per the law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Professional during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Thus, it is clear that the jurisdiction bestowed upon this Appellate Tribunal too is expressly circumscribed. The examination in challenge to the approved Resolution Plan by this Tribunal is limited to matters other than enquiry into the business decision based on commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors. The limited judicial review in Appeal does not extend to oversee and question the business decision of the majority of Committee of Creditors and the Committee of Creditors cannot be directed to reverse its business decision or reconsider a settlement proposal that has been rejected with requisite majority. 4. In 'Maharashtra Seamless Limited Vs. Padmanabhan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ors in whom their financial creditors have lost hope of recovery and who have turned into non- performer or a chronic defaulter. The fact that the concerned corporate debtor was still able to carry on its business activities does not obligate the financial creditors to postpone the recovery of the debt due or to prolong their losses indefinitely. Be that as it may, the scope of enquiry and the grounds on which the decision of "approval" of the resolution plan by the CoC can be interfered with by the adjudicating Authority (NCLT), has been set out in Section 31(1) read with Section 30(2) and by the appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) under Section 32 read with Section 61(3) of the I&B Code. No corresponding provision has been envisaged by the legisla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ead with Section 31(1) of the I&B Code. It cannot make any other inquiry nor is competent to issue any direction in relation to the exercise of commercial wisdom of the financial creditors - be it for approving, rejecting or abstaining, as the case may be. Even the inquiry before the Appellate Authority (NCLAT) is limited to the grounds under Section 61(3) of the I&B Code. It does not postulate jurisdiction to undertake scrutiny of the justness of the opinion expressed by financial creditors at the time of voting. To take any other view would enable even the minority dissenting financial creditors to question the logic or justness of the commercial opinion expressed by the majority of the financial creditors albeit by requisite percent of v....