TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te Debtor viz., M/s. Ashok Magnetics Limited (for short 'the Corporate Debtor). The Application has been filed under Section 60 (5) read with Rule 11 of National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, with the prayer to issue a direction to the Resolution Professional and Committee of Creditors (CoC) to reconsider their decision dated 18.09.2018, by which the 'Resolution Plan' filed by the Applicants was rejected. 2. The Applicants have stated that they are Promoters of the Corporate Debtor. It has further been placed on record that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against. the Corporate Debtor on 04.09.2009 on the Application filed by one of the Financial Creditors under CP/ 9951/2017. The Order of this Authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Applicant as willful defaulter and the process of personal interview are over and only RBI publication is pending; and * That the Resolution Professional has filed a Petition under Section 43/45 of the I&B Code for setting aside various transactions. * Mr. Ajay Agarwal is one of the Directors of Ankit Ispact Private Limited, which is an existing NPA of Central Bank of India, and not eligible for submission of Resolution Plan under Section 29A. 5. The Applicants have filed the Application on the grounds as follows:- i. A mere perusal of the Minutes of the meeting of the CoC held on 18.09.2018 clearly goes to show that the CoC has prejudged the things and rejected the Resolution Plan without the application of mind. ii. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 10 Crores. viii. That the rejection of the Resolution Plan by the CoCs with pre-judged decision is more dangerous and damaging to the economy of the country. Thereby the Resolution Professional and CoCs have totally and miserably failed in their duty to consider the Resolution Plan on merits and the reasons given by them in the minutes of the meeting are totally erroneous and deserve to be set aside. 6. The Applicants have also filed Additional /Reply affidavit on 31.10.2018 wherein it has been submitted that one of the Applicants is merely a nominee Director of M/s. Ankit Ispat private Limited and does not have any managerial power or control over the Company and its day-to-day affairs and the Applicants are not disqualified unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Resolution Plan presented is more lucrative and beneficial for all the stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor than its liquidation. 10. It has been reiterated that the Resolution Professional and CoCs may be directed to reconsider the decision dated 18.09.2018 and to accept the Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicants. 11. On perusal of the Minutes of the CoCs dated 18.09.2018 by which the Resolution Plan of the Applicants has been rejected, it appears that the Resolution Plan has been rejected inter-alia on the ground that Applicants are barred under Section 29A of the I&B Code, 2016, as one of the members of the CoCs had objected the acceptance and discussion of the Resolution Plan submitted by Promoters / Director....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n view of it, the CoCs have reject the Resolution Plan on flimsy ground. 14. The fourth ground taken by the CoCs for rejection of the Resolution Plan is the pendency of the Application(s) before the Adjudicating Authority under Sections 43 and 45 of the I&B Code, 2016, which if decided in favour of the Corporate Debtor will add to the value, for which the Resolution Applicants could have considered maximization of Resolution Plan value. This thought, process is purely hypothetical, and cannot be valid ground for rejection of the Resolution Plan, as the plan cannot be contingent in nature. 15. There are other grounds on which the CoCs have rejected the Resolution Plan of the Resolution Applicants, but the same are not required to be d....