TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese Appeals namely, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 701 of 2021 & Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 785 of 2021 in IB No.- 581(ND)/2020 preferred by the Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant-'Amanat Randhawa Hotels Pvt. Ltd.' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant'), are against the Orders of the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. 2763 of 2021 and I.A. 2714 of 2021 respectively. 2. Vide Order dated 08.07.2021 in I.A. 2763 of 2021, the Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the Application preferred by the Applicant on the ground that the Application has been filed for consideration after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC. 3. In the Impugned Order dated 06.09.2021, passed in I.A. 2714 of 2021 preferred by the Resolution Professional under Section 30(6) seeking approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by one Mr. Sarabjit Singh, the Learned Adjudicating Authority has observed as follows:- "While considering the present application, the unsuccessful Resolution Applicant whose interim application bearing IA No. 2763 of 2021 (after careful consideration by this Tribunal) was dismissed on 8th July, 2021 has appeared before the Tribunal (virtual mode) and submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sional to place the proposal of offer of Rs. 121 Crores before the CoC for its consideration, but no reply was received; that the Appellant preferred an Application on 23.06.2021 before the Adjudicating Authority seeking directions to consider their EoI and submitted that the Impugned Order dated 08.07.2021, passed by the Adjudicating Authority dismissing their Application on the ground that the Resolution Plan was already approved, is erroneous. 6. Learned Counsel contended that subsequently in I.A. 2714 of 2021, preferred by the Resolution Professional under Section 30(6) seeking approval of Resolution Plan it was submitted before the Adjudicating Authority that an Appeal against the Order dated 08.07.2021 was pending before this Tribunal (NCLAT) and that they were ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs. 60 Crores before 23.09.2021. The Learned Adjudicating Authority had considered their submissions and directed the Appellant to pay Rs. 10 Crores to the RP within 7 working days else the same shall be forfeited the balance Rs. 50 Crore was directed to be paid on or before 23.09.2021. 7. It is vehemently contended by the Counsel that the Adjudicating Authority ought not to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty vide Order dated 08.07.2021. Subsequently, in the 9th Meeting of the CoC convened on 21.06.2021 after examining the feasibility and viability, approved by 100% voting share, the Resolution Plan of Mr. Sarabjit Singh was approved and the Letter of Intent was issued. An Application was preferred before the Adjudicating Authority for approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the Code. 13. It is seen from the record that the Appellant sought the indulgence of the RP to place its offer before the CoC for consideration vide emails dated 15.06.2020 and 16.06.2021, which were placed before the CoC by the Resolution Professional, but as the last date for submission of EoI has expired, the CoC rejected the same. Admittedly, the last date for submission of EoI's was 06.03.2021 and the extended last date for submission of Resolution Plan was 10.05.2021 and it is pertinent to note that the email sent by the Appellant herein is dated 13.06.2021, which is much after the last date. At this juncture, it is relevant to reproduce the discussion by the CoC on the offer made by the Appellant in their Meeting dated 17.06.2021:- "Mr. Arora that the RP is supposed to follow the process and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Appellate Authority or in a Writ or Civil Court. As has been held in Swiss Ribbons (supra) and ArcelorMittal India (supra) (see paragraph 97 of Swiss Ribbons (supra) and paragraph 82, 84 of ArcelorMittal India (supra)), no vested right inheres in any resolution applicant to have its plan approved under the Code. Also, the Federal Court in Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri AIR 1941 FC 5 and later, this Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 659 (at paragraphs 16 and 17) have held that an appellate proceeding is a continuation of an original proceeding. This being so, a change in law can always be applied to an original or appellate proceeding. For this reason also, Explanation 2 is constitutionally valid, not having any retrospective operation so as to impair vested rights. (Emphasis Supplied) 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd.' Vs. 'Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Ors.' Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2019 has observed as follows:- "57. It could thus be seen, that the legislature has given paramount importance to the commercial wisdom of CoC and the scope of judici....