TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed vide Order dated 12-11-2018 by appointing Mr. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal as the Interim Resolution Professional. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, thereafter, was replaced by Mr. Kannan Tiruvengadam and he continued the CIRP process. Mr. Kannan Tiruvengadam complied with all the requirements to be meted out under the Code and Regulations and conducted altogether 9 meetings of the Members of the Committee of Creditors and ultimately succeeded in getting the approval for a Resolution Plan submitted by Almas Global Opportunity Fund SPC (in short ALMIS) by a vote share of 80.18%. It is that Resolution Plan comes up for approval before us. 4. As usual, three Objectors come forward objecting the approval of the Resolution Plan. So, first of all, let us see whether the objections are sufficient enough to reject the plan or requires modifications as prayed for. 5. The Bank of Baroda, a Financial Creditor, who is a Member of Committee of Creditors and voted in favour of the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors, filed CA(IB) No. 1175/KB/2019, praying for issuing directions to the Applicant/Bank of Baroda with regard to payment, pursuant to the invocation of Bank Guarantee by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Order of this Adjudicating Authority dated 06-09-2019, passed in CA(IB) No. 947/KB/2019. The CA(IB) No. 947/KB/2019 is an Application filed by the Resolution Professional praying for issuing directions to the Applicant, Canara Bank, to refund a sum of Rs. 1,96,12,749/- to the Corporate Debtor on the ground that the said sum was adjusted by the Applicant in violation of the declaration of the moratorium in the case in hand. The CA(IB) No. 947/KB/2019 is an Application hotly contested by the Applicant, Canara Bank. It is after an elaborate hearing on the side of the Applicant Bank and the Resolution Professional, we are inclined to pass an order in favour of the Corporate Debtor, directing the Applicant Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 1,96,12,749/- to the Corporate Debtor, along with interest thereon. It is that order which is requested to be recalled. It appears to us that the Applicant has got the right of appeal to challenge the Order passed on merits and the objections raised in the Application are the similar objections as had been raised in CA(IB) No. 947/KB/2019 and therefore, we do not find any justifiable reason to recall the Order dated 06-09-2019. At this juncture, Ld. Couns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, wherein the distribution pattern was deliberated upon before the Committee of Creditors in the meeting held on 26-09-2019, was brought to our notice. It is good to read the relevant portion in the minutes at Page 9. It read as follows: "The members of the committee deliberated on the proposed distribution pattern. Some of the members of the committee including Union Bank of India, raised objection that the distribution is not equitable because of proposed additional comfort provided to those members who have un-invoked bank guarantees amount to INR 763.67 Crore as on 24th September, 2019. One of the committee members suggested that for equitable distribution amongst the members there should be an inter se agreement between the consortium lenders where all the uninvoked bank guarantees will be distributed amongst the members equally. SBI explained elaborately that the un-invoked BG's are contingent in nature and further stated that in case of invocation of BG post approval of resolution plan the banks are liable to pay to the beneficiaries immediately for which they are getting only debentures carrying a coupon @0.01% per annum which are redeemable in cash after seven years....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ution which will result in issuing directions in the teeth of the provisions as applicable to case in hand." 11. Bearing in mind the proposition held in the above cited decision, we are of the considered view that the objections raised by the applicant deserve no consideration and accordingly the CA(IB) No. 1327/KB/2019, is liable to be dismissed. 12. Having found that none of the Objections in regard to the approval of the Resolution Plan is sustainable under law, then let us see whether the Resolution Plan under consideration is liable to be approved. 13. The Ld. Senior Counsel, appearing for the Resolution Professional, submits that the Resolution Plan is complete, that it is approved by the Committee of Creditors by a vote share of 80.18% and is not in contravention of any of the provisions of the law, for the time being in force, and it is in conformity with Section 30(2) (e) of the Code and that the Plan conforms to such other requirements as may be specified by the Board and in confirmation with Section 30(2) (f) of the Code. The Resolution Plan is feasible and viable as per the majority decision of the Committee of Creditors. Provisions for its effective implementation h....