TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocate for R2 JUDGMENT Jarat Kumar Jain. J. The Appellant Ex-Director of the M/s SSMP Industries (Corporate Debtor) filed this Appeal against the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi, Bench -III) in I.A. No. 346 of 2021 in CP (IB) 495/(ND)/2017. Whereby dismissed the Appellant's Application as it become infructuous. 2. Brief facts of this case are that on 27.08.2018 the Adjudicating Authority passed an order for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the M/s SSMP Industries Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) on the petition of an Operational Creditor. Pursuant thereto and in response to the advertisement of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) inviting Exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsider the proposal of the Applicant (Appellant) under Section 230 of the Act in view of the order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT. (b) Pass such other and further order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. On 22.01.2021 the Appellant submitted OTS cum Compromise proposal under Section 230 of the Act offering the total payment of Rs. 1.50 Crores. This proposal was also rejected by both lenders being on the lower side against admitted claim of Rs. 15.93 Crores. Ld. Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Application by the impugned order which reads as under: - "Counsel for the Applicant is present. It is submitted that two OTS proposal were given to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judicating Authority on 04.02.2021 impugned order was passed which is illegal. It is submitted that as per direction of this Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 06.02.2020 the Respondent No. 2 (liquidator) did not exhaust remedies under Section 230 of the Act. The Respondent No. 2 did not organize meetings of CoC Members with the Appellant on two OTS proposals covering agenda. Therefore, the Appellant was unable to discuss on OTS Proposals with Respondent No. 1. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 (PNB) submitted that the acceptance or rejection of OTS depends solely upon the CoC. The CoC found that the OTS Proposals were on lower side vis a vis option of security enforce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15.93 Crores and subsequently, after the order passed by this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal dated 06.2.2020 submitted OTS cum Compromise Proposals under Section 230 of the Act, offering to pay an amount of Rs. 5.05 Crores which was rejected by the both the Financial Creditors by 100% voting. However, subsequently on 22.01.2021 the Appellant submitted another OTS cum Compromise proposals under Section 230 of the Act, offering total payment of Rs. 1.5 Crores, this proposal was also rejected by both the Financial Creditors. There are only two Financial Creditors i.e. Respondent No.1 and Kotak Prime Ltd. They are the members of the CoC. The Respondent No. 2 being a liquidator placed the OTS Proposals before the CoC and the CoC after due considerat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has not pointed out any irregularity in exercise of the powers committed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority. The CoC has taken commercial decision of rejecting the OTS proposals. It is settled law that the statute has not invested jurisdiction and authority either with NCLT or NCLAT to review the commercial decision exercised by the CoC of approving the resolution plan or rejecting the same. 12. It is also to be noted that in this Appeal the Appellant has raised the ground that the CoC has rejected the OTS cum Compromise proposals without assigning any valid reason and without any suitable opportunity to the Appellant to discuss with the Respondent No. 1 on OTS Proposals. Such objection was never raised before....