TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 495
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dvocates for Resolution Professional Mr. Niraj Kumar, Mr. Satendra K. Rai and Ms. Tejali, Advocates for Resolution Professional Mr. Abhishek Puri and Ms. Surbhi Gupta, Advocates for Maharashtra Maritime Board JUDGMENT Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. 'DBM Geotechnics and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.' moved an application under Section 9 of the 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('I&B Code', for short) for initiation of the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against 'Dighi Port Limited' (Corporate Debtor). The Adjudicating Authority by impugned order dated 25th march, 2018 admitted the application. 2. Mr. Vishal Vijay Kalantri (Director and Shareholder of the Corporate Debtor) initially challenged the impugned order on one of the ground that there is an 'existence of dispute'. The notice was issued on Respondents pursuant to which the Respondent (DBM Geotechnics and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. - Operational Creditor) appeared. The learned counsel for the Appellant sought time to settle the dispute, which was agreed upon by the learned counsel for the Respondent as recorded on 12th July, 2018, which is : "12.07.2018: The appeal was preferred against order of init....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ernment of India Undertaking' with certain conditions. The said order has been challenged by 'Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited', one of the resolution applicant and also by 'Vishal Vijay Kalantri' - a shareholder of the 'Corporate Debtor' in their respective 'Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 697 of 2019' and 'Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 722 of 2019' . At the relevant point of time, the proposal under Section 12A of the 'I&B Code' was submitted by 'Vishal Vijay Kalantri' which was rejected by the 'Committee of Creditors'. Subsequently, the 'Successful Resolution Applicant' (JNPT) sought additional time of 30 days for filing the affidavit for acceptance or rejection of the modifications in terms of the order dated 8th May, 2019. In the said application, it was contended that it was very critical for JNPT to fully understand and holistically evaluate the impact of modifications directed in the JNPT's resolution plan before taking any decision in this respect and for this additional time of at least 30 days was required for filing the affidavit regarding its acceptance or rejection in terms of order dated 8th May, 2019. 5. It was further stated that 'JNPT' ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mittee of Creditors' discussed and deliberated upon the Resolution Plans submitted by 'APSEZL' and 'Veritas Consortium' and called upon the Resolution Applicant(s) to give a presentation on their Resolution Plans. At the said meeting, the Resolution Professional requested 'APSEZL' and Veritas Consortium to provide certain clarifications in light of the amendments made in Section 39(2)(b) of the I&B Code. Accordingly, 'APSEZL' and 'Veritas Consortium' agreed to comply with the same. Further, the 'Committee of Creditors' fixed the deadline of 12th September, 2019 for the Promoters of the Corporate Debtor to submit EMD of 20% of the Settlement Proposal along with further details/clarifications/information as sought by the Forensic Auditor/ Evaluation Advisor. 9. Pursuant to the aforesaid, 'APSEZL' and 'Veritas Consortium' submitted the addendums inter alia to clarify on compliances with the Amendments made in Section 30(2)(b) of the I&B Code. 10. Thereafter, on 13th September, 2019, the 22nd Meeting of the 'Committee of Creditors' was held whereat the 'Committee of Creditors' decided that the Proposal for Settlement received from the Promoters under Section 12A of the I&B Code a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l put the Resolution Plan submitted by 'APSEZL' for voting by the members of the 'Committee of Creditors'. The voting on the same commenced on 17th September, 2019 and concluded on 19th September, 2019. 13. On 19th September, 2019, the voting results were received which revealed that the Resolution Plan submitted by APSEZ was approved by the members of the 'Committee of Creditors' with 99.68% votes. 14. It was submitted that that Hon'ble NCLT vide its Order dated 15th January, 2020 in the 'Company Petition [C.P.(I.B.) No. 1382 (MB) of 2017]' has reserved Judgement on the Application filed by the 'Resolution Professional' under Sections 30 and 31 of the I&B Code, inter alia, seeking approval of the Resolution Plan of 'APSEZL' which has been approved by 99.68% [voting share] of the 'Committee of Creditors'. Therefore, the determination/adjudication as to whether the Resolution Plan is in compliance to the provisions of the I&B Code and Regulations framed thereunder is sub judice before the NCLT i.e. Adjudicating Authority being the court of first instance. It is further submitted that the Settlement Proposal of the Appellant under Section 12A of the I&B Code has been rejected b....