TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 387
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shutosh Kumar Sharma, AOR, Mr. Pracheta Kar, Adv., Mr. Aditya Sidhra, Adv. And Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv. ORDER DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellant at sufficient length and having perused the material placed on record, we do not feel persuaded to entertain this appeal under Section 62 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016[1] by one of the resolution applicants[2] in the corporate insolvency resolution process[3] concerning the corporate debtor-B.B. Foods Pvt. Ltd. The appellant seeks to question the judgment and order dated 13.01.2022 as passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi[4] in Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 35 of 2022 whereby, the Appellate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further objections/issues were raised by any other participant of the meeting and accordingly, representative of Resolution Applicant, namely, Sirius Foods Private Limited left the meeting thereafter. At this stage, the representative of Resolution Applicant, namely, consortium of Prabhat Warehouse and Cold Storage Limited and Mr. Ajay Gupta was invited to have detailed deliberations on the Resolution Plan submitted by, consortium of Prabhat Warehouse and Cold Storage Limited & Mr. Ajay Gupta and during the course of deliberations, defects/technical difficulty were pointed out and thereafter, representative of Resolution Applicant, namely, consortium of Prabhat Warehouse and Cold Storage Limited and Mr. Ajay Gupta assured that all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amount of payment to be made under the resolution plan of Rs. 16.10 crores will remain the same and is not being modified, however I'm putting forth my gesture of making the payment upfront, if the bank allows the same within 90 days of the receipt of the order of Hon'ble NCLT approving our resolution plan, as I would be taking the possession of the corporate debtor on the payment of upfront amount of resolution amount i.e. Rs.16.10 crore. 3. Our payment of upfront amount under the resolution plan is in no way going to modify the plan and I am submitting this affidavit so to clear my point." It appears that the appellant's proposal for such modification/amendment of the resolution plan was declined by the resolution profession....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....os. 290 to 298 alongwith the covering letter addressed to the sole member of the CoC for consideration. Since we do not wish to disturb level playing field, the other resolution applicants whose plans are also being considered will also be permitted to place any modification in their submitted resolution plan before the CoC for its consideration. Such modifications shall be communicated to the CoC, no later than 48 hours from now. Accordingly, IA No. 367/2021 is disposed of." Thereafter, the resolution plans were considered by the CoC on 21/22.12.2021 and the plan of the other resolution applicant was approved. The appellant, on the other hand, attempted to question the said order dated 13.12.2021 before the Appellate Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....even permissible under the conditions of RFRP; and the submissions of the appellant by way of the affidavit dated 17.11.2021 had only been to meet with the requirements of the COC, as reflected in the minutes of the meeting dated 02.11.2021 and for such a proposition, there was no justification in granting any liberty to the other resolution applicant to modify its resolution plan. Learned senior counsel has also contended that appellant had been rather prejudiced in the matter for the reason that the terms of its resolution plan became known to the other resolution applicant when the matter was examined by the Adjudicating Authority while passing order dated 13.12.2021. We do not find the submissions aforesaid making out a case for inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terms of its resolution plan before the Adjudicating Authority, there had not been any fault on the part of the resolution professional or the CoC or the other resolution applicant. Thus, the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority as also by the Appellate Tribunal appears to be reasonable and sound, calling for no interference. Before concluding on the matter, we need to indicate two other relevant factors concerning this matter. One is that the other resolution applicant, whose resolution plan has been accepted by the Committee of Creditors, is not before us and has not been impleaded as a party respondent in this appeal. Hence, no order prejudicial to the interest of the successful resolution applicant could be passed in this appe....