TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor was initiated by this Bench by an order on 21/08/2019 and the Applicant was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The Committee of Creditors (CoC) comprising the following Financial Creditors, in its meeting held on 24/09/2019 confirmed the Applicant as the Resolution Professional (RP). The Applicant in compliance of the provision of the Code and Rules framed there under conducted the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. Name of Financial Creditor Voting Share (%) Syndicate Bank 43.95 Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company 14.81 Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited 13.21 Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited 12.20 Andhra Bank 5.85 IFCI Limited 4.79 Union Bank of India 3.40 Indian Overseas Bank 1.79 Total 100 3. During the period of CIRP two Resolution Plans were received, one from M/s Shri Sai Priya Sugars Limited and another from M/s Twentyone Sugars Limited. The CoC after several rounds of negotiations with the Resolution Applicants evaluated both the Resolution Plan as per the Evaluation Matrix. It accepted the Resolution Plan submitted by the highest bidder....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... C. Management of the Corporate Debtor: The Resolution Applicant proposes to appoint Mr. Murugesh R Nirani and Mr. Rachappa V Karehonnas as the Directors of the Corporate Debtor after the approval of the Resolution Plan. It proposes to appoint following persons as the Members of the Monitoring Committee for implementation of the Resolution Plan: Mr. Anand Sonbhadra (Monitoring Professional) as Chairman, Mr. Ajeyenulu Chelukuri (Representative of Syndicate Bank), Mr. Srinath Narsimhan (Representative of Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company), Mr. Nitin Kamble (Representative of Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited) as nominees of the Financial Creditors and Mr. Vinay M Nirani, Mr. Sudheendra Ghali and Mr. R. V. Vatanal as nominees of the Resolution Applicant. D. Compliance of mandatory contents of Resolution Plan under the Code and CIRP Regulations: The Applicant has conducted a thorough compliance check of the Resolution Plan in terms of the Code as well as Regulations 38 and 39 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process) Regulations, 2016 (the Regulation) and has submitted his Form H under R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n does not contravene any provisions of the law for the time being in force. The Resolution Plan is in compliance of the Regulation 38 of the Regulations in terms of Section 30(2)(f) as under: a) the payment to Operational Creditor will be made in priority over Financial Creditor (Regulation 38(1)(a). b) Payment to dissenting Financial Creditor will be paid in priority over the other Financial Creditors (Regulation 38(1)(b)). c) Declaration by the Resolution Applicant that the Resolution Plan has considered the interest of all the stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor, keeping in view the objectives of the Code (Regulation 38(1A)). d) Declaration by the Resolution Applicant that neither the Resolution Applicant nor any of his related party has either failed or contributed to the failure of the implementation of any other approved Resolution Plan. 9. During the hearing of the Application the Representative of the Resolution Applicant on the persuasion of this Bench agreed to increase the payment from 10% to 20% of the liability with respect to employees and workmen. Accordingly, the Resolution Applicant by letter dated 03.09.2020 has undertaken ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the Resolution Plan as approved by CoC meets the requirements specified in Section 30(2). The Hon'ble Court observed that the role of the NCLT is 'no more and no less'. The Hon'ble Court further held that the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority is circumscribed by Section 31 and is limited to scrutiny of the Resolution Plan "as approved" by the requisite percent of voting share of financial creditors. Even in that enquiry, the grounds on which the Adjudicating Authority can reject the Resolution Plan is in reference to matters specified in Section 30(2) when the Resolution Plan does not conform to the stated requirements. 14. In CoC of Essar Steel (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly laid down that the Adjudicating Authority would not have power to modify the Resolution Plan which the CoC in their commercial wisdom have approved. In para 42 Hon'ble Court observed as under: "Thus, it is clear that the limited judicial review available, which can in no circumstance trespass upon a business decision of the majority of the Committee of Creditors, has to be within the four corners of section 30(2) of the Code, insofar as the Adjudicating Authority is concerned, ....