TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cate for R-1. Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai, Mr. Pervinder and Mr. Vineet Kumar, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Kartik Malhotra and Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat, Advocates for R-3. Mr. Brijesh Kr. Tamber, Advocate for R-4. Ms. Garima Sharma, Mr. Girish B. Kedia, Mr. Mohit Chaudhary and Ms. Shivangi Girish Kedia, Advocates for R-5 ORDER ( Virtual Mode ) The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant as Ex-Director/ Promoter of the Corporate Debtor -'M/s Pingle Builders Pvt. Ltd.'. The Appeal has been filed against impugned order dated 11th December, 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Court - III at Mumbai in I.A. No.1506/2019 which was filed by the Resolution Professional and M.A. No.2261/2019 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion and directions to CoC to consider resolution/ settlement plan of the Appellant. Appeal mentions as to how Adjudicating Authority in order dated 19th July, 2019 directed Resolution Professional to hold a meeting in 5 days so that the CoC could consider revised proposal of the Appellant. According to the Appeal, in the 10th Meeting of CoC held on 22nd July, 2019, the Appellant had offered settlement which was accepted by Respondent No. 5 on the condition that the Appellant would make payment of Rs. 30,00,000/- before 5th August, 2019. Appeal claims that the Operational Creditor subsequently backed out of this proposal. Appeal claims that the Appellant made further efforts for settlement and also gave resolution plan and the Resolution Pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mited his arguments to request that the Corporate Debtor is now in liquidation and in the liquidation proceedings the Appellant has given a bid to take over the Corporate Debtor as going concern but the obstruction in the way of the Appellant are observations of the Adjudicating Authority in Para 4 of the impugned order holding that the Appellant was hit by Section 29A of the IBC. The Learned Counsel submitted that all the other grounds raised by the Appellant in the Appeal are not being pressed by the Appellant and the Appeal is now limited to the observations made by the Adjudicating Authority in Para 4 of the impugned order. 6. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 appearing for Ex-Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) submits that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the proceeding and buy time. Also, the applicant in these two M.A.s is the ex-promoter of the Corporate Debtor against whom an application for preferential transactions was filed by the RP. Here, it is to be noted that the applicant gets hit by Section 29A of the Code and is therefore, restrained from filing the resolution plan. For ready reference, we would like to reproduce Section 29A hereunder:" 10. Thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority reproduced Section 29A of IBC. Then, in Para 5, the Adjudicating Authority made the following observations: "5. Keeping the above facts and circumstances in mind and relying upon this settled position of law, we believe that the matter is unnecessarily being dragged by the ex-promoters and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appellant was trying to bring through a resolution plan filed by him and his resolution plan was required to be accepted, fact remains that the record does not show that Resolution Plan, as such of the Appellant, was approved by CoC by any given majority. Section 9 application was admitted on 19th July, 2018 and Liquidation order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 11th December, 2020. This is more than two years of time. Clearly, if in the time prescribed under Section 12 of IBC resolution was not reached in the given time, liquidation is the only consequence which had to follow and which has been ordered though belatedly. 13. Now coming to Para 4 of the impugned order, the argument of Learned Counsel for the Appellant is attractiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CC Online SC 220, back door entries cannot be allowed. After CIRP was initiated former Promoter/ Director cannot suppress from IRP/RP and apply for MSME Certificate and tide over ineligibility under Section 29A of the IBC. 15. Admittedly, M.A. No. 3020/2019 regarding Section 43, 66, 65 of IBC is still pending and is not decided one way or the other. The observation in context of Section 29A appears to have been made to demonstrate how sufficient chance was given to the Appellant though he appeared to be undeserving, and was now dragging proceedings. 16. (A) For the above reasons, we would ignore the observations made in Para 4 of the impugned order. It would be appropriate for the Adjudicating Authority to formally decide M.A. No. 302....