2018 (11) TMI 1849

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat, J. This appeal was preferred by 'Maharashtra Seamless Ltd.' against the order dated 28th September, 2018 whereby the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad directed as follows: "35. It is therefore necessary to re-determine the Liquidation Value before considering the Resolution Plan filed by MSL. After re-determining the Liquidation Value as directed, the CoC has to examine the Resolution Plan of MSL. Hon'ble NCLAT has held in the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.185 of 2018 dated 08.05.2018 (2018 SCC Online NCLAT 243) that if the facts and circumstances justify exclusion in unforeseen circumstances, Hon'ble NCLAT says some circumstances wherein the period involved ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uspended Board were not allowed to participate in the discussion in the 7 th & 8th CoC meetings. Therefore, the Resolution Plans which were found to be qualified along with the Resolution Plan submitted by MSL to be placed before the CoC again for consideration and Directors (Suspended Board) be permitted at the time that time when Resolution Plans come up for discussion and they be allowed express their views and suggestions and the same to be recorded in the minutes along with views of CoC." The 'Resolution Professional' was ordered to convene the meeting of the 'Committee of Creditors' to comply with the directions. When the matter was taken up by the Appellate Tribunal on 22nd October, 2018, the following observations wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tors has approved the plan and the Resolution Professional produced the same before the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 637 of 2018 Adjudicating Authority, the Adjudicating Authority has to approve the same if it is in consonance with Section 30(2) or to reject it if it is in violation of Section 30(2). Prima facie there is no provision to direct the Resolution Professional at that stage to redetermine the liquidation value once the plan has been approved by the Committee of Creditors. Let notice be issued on Respondents. Mr. Aditya Verma, Advocate alongwith Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate accepts notice on behalf of 2nd Respondent (Resolution Professional). Mr. Raghav Sabharwal, Advocate alongwith Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate ....