TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad) while passing the impugned order dated 24.02.2021 had among other things at paragraph 3 and 4 observed the following: 3. "The Resolution Professional has compared both the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s. KALS Group and Mr. Chava Suresh Babu. The Resolution Plan submitted by both the Resolution Applicants were almost equally placed except for the fact that M/s. KALS Group has scored in terms of faster payment of the amount for resolving the Corporate Debtor. However, as both the resolution plans are almost placed equally in terms of the resolution amount payable by the perspective Resolution Applicants and farther unsuccessful Resolution Applicants has filed several interlocutory applications for consideration of their plan. Taking into consideration the almost similarly placed resolution plans and claims and counter claims made by both the Resolution Applicants, we are of the view that there is a need for further pursuance of the Resolution Plan and with the very hope that the Corporate Debtor may fetch better value that what has been offered by the Resolution Applicants. In this case, even though the resolution plan of M/s. KA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 'Adjudicating Authority' cannot trespass into the 'Commercial Wisdom' of the 'Committee of Creditors' and indeed, has a restricted power, of course, within the four corners of section 30(2) of the I & B Code, 2016. 10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to the decision in Shrawan Kumar Agarwal Consortium & others V Rituraj Steel Private Limited & ors reported in (2020) 160 SCL 210 wherein a question arose 'whether the Adjudicating Authority has exceeded it is jurisdiction in passing orders rebidding, despite the approval of the Resolution Plan by the 'Committee of Creditors' with a vote share of 84.70%'? and it was held that a direction for rebidding, despite approval of a Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors was not valid in Law and that any direction for maximisation of value of the Corporate Debtor also amounts to an interference in the business decision of the Committee of Creditors. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Adjudicating Authority in IA No. 1188/2020 in IA No. 1094/2020 in CP (IB) 153/7/HDB/2019 (Filed by the Applicant/Resolution Applicant under section 60(5) of the I & B Code, 2016 on 17.02.2021 passed an order by co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed in IA Nos. 1187,& 1188 /2020 filed by the unsuccessful resolution applicants (Mr. Suresh Babu Chava in with Devi Innoventures LLP). Therefore, a plea is taken on the side of the Respondent that the impugned order is untenable in Law. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT: 18. At this juncture, this Tribunal, pertinently points out the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 10.03.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 2943-2944/2020 with Civil Appeal Nos.3138-3139 of 2020, Civil Appeal No.2949-2950 of 2020, Civil Appeal No.847-848/2021 (D.No.24125 of 2020) in the matter of Kalpraj Dharamshi & Anr. V. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. & Anr. Whereby and where under at Paragraphs 155 to 159, it is observed as follows: Para 155. "It would thus be clear, that the legislative scheme, as interpreted by various decisions of this Court, is unambiguous. The commercial wisdom of CoC is not to be interfered with, excepting the limited scope as provided under Sections 30 and 31 of the I&B Code. 156. No doubt, it is sought to be urged, that since there has been a material irregularity in exercise of the posers by RP, NCLAT was justified in view of the provisions of clause (ii) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NCLAT dated 5.8.2020 does not stand the scrutiny of law, it must follow, that the subsequent approval of the resolution plan of KIAL by CoC becomes non-est in law. For, it was only to abide by the directions of NCLAT. We are of the view that nothing would turn on it. The decision of CoC dated 13/14.2.2019 is a decision, which has been taken in exercise of its 'commercial wisdom'. As such, we hold, that the decision taken by CoC dated 13/14.2.2019, which is taken in accordance with its 'commercial wisdom' and which is only approved by NCLT, will prevail. Further, NCLAT was not justified in interfering with the stated decision taken by CoC. 159. In that view of the matter, we find, that Civil Appeal Nos.2943-2944 of 2020 filed by Kalpraj: Civil Appeal Nos.2949-2950 of 2020 filed by RP and Civil Appeal Nos.3138-3139 of 2020 filed by Deutsche Bank deserve to be allowed. It is ordered accordingly. The order passed by NCLAT dated 5.8.2020 is quashed and set aside and the orders passed by NCLT dated 28.11.2019 are restored and maintained" APPRAISAL: 19. On a careful consideration of the submissions advanced on either side, this 'Tribunal' after going through the impugned or....